Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Wolverhampton Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (Trolley Vehicles, etc.) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 5th June.

Sheffield Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILLS,

Ordered, That the Select Committee on Railway (Road Transport) Bills have leave to sit on Monday, 4th June, notwithstanding the Adjournment of the House.—[Nr. A. V. Alexander.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

DISABILITY PENSIONS (E. FITZHUGH, NORTHAMPTON).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. E. Fitzhugh, of 26, Monk Pond Street, Northampton, Reference No. 7/MF/1372, who, in 1919, was receiving 10s. a week attendance money for the loss of his left arm and left leg; whether he is aware that in 1924 this allowance was reduced by 2s. 6d., and on his appealing against this reduction it was reduced by a further 2s. 6d. to 5s. a week; and whether, in view of the absence of one leg and one arm, he will state why this man is allowed only one-third of the sum to which his disability entitled him?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The hon. Member is, I fear, under a misapprehension as to the character of the allowance referred to. A constant attendance allowance is granted, within the maximum fixed by the Royal Pensions Warrant, at such amount as may be determined from time to time to represent the extent of the personal services regularly required from an attendant by the pensioner. In the case of Mr. Fitzhugh, who is in receipt of a total disability pension, the additional allowance at the rate now current was determined not as the result of appeal, as suggested in the question, but in accordance with the normal procedure as representing the extent to which the present condition of the pensioner requires such personal service. I am not aware of any grounds for an award at a higher rate for the pensioner in question.

Mr. MALONE: Does the Minister of Pensions really think that 5s. is a suitable pension for the loss of one leg and one arm?

Major TRYON: The hon. Member does not seem to be very familiar with the ease. The man is getting full pension in addition.

HOSPITAL TREATMENT.

Mr. KELLY: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of cases where ex-service men have had hospital treatment during the first three months of 1928; and in how many of these cases was treatment allowance paid to the families of these men?

Major TRYON: The number of ex-service men who were receiving hospital treatment at any time during the first quarter of 1928 was 11,400, exclusive of men in mental hospitals. Allowances would have been paid to families of patients in all eligible cases, which would be, in fact, the large majority of them. I have no information as to the precise number.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask if any instructions have been sent out to the various areas indicating that there must be a tightening up in regard to the payment of these treatment allowances?

Major TRYON: No, Sir, I contradicted that statement in the House yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — STREET OFFENCES COMMITTEE.

Mr. DAY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of sittings which have been held by the Street Offences Committee, and when the Report is expected?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The Committee has held 19 meetings. I understand that the Chairman has hopes that the Report will be ready about October.

Mr. DAY: Can the Home Secretary say what number of witnesses have been examined by this Committee?

Sir W. JOYNSON-KICKS: 58.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that more sittings of this Committee are being held? Did not the Home Secretary intend to refer the case of the two police constables who were under examination by him for the original case in Eyde Park, in which Sir Leo Money and Miss Savidge were acquitted, to this Committee?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In regard to the first supplementary question, I hope it will not be necessary for the Committee to sit and take evidence again. I hope the Committee will be able to proceed with the consideration of their report, which I am anxiously awaiting. As regards the second supplementary question, I have taken no steps in that direction.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman abandoned that idea., because my recollection is that he informed the House that that would be the procedure?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I do not think so. I cannot remember every question that has been put to me on this matter—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It was in the Debate, I think.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think I said that. There were various ideas as to how we would deal with the matter, but I certainly arrived at no decision.

Mr. HAYES: Has the right hon. Gentleman abandoned the idea of finally inquiring into the case?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Oh, no.

Oral Answers to Questions — DARTMOOR PRISON (MEMORIAL GATEWAY).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 6.
asked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that on 30th May a memorial gateway erected by convict labour is to be dedicated to the memory of American prisoners of war who died in Dartmoor Prison during the years 1813 to 1815, he will consider the appropriateness of recognising the event in some way by a cessation from work or otherwise among the convicts now in this gaol?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid it is not practicable to give to convicts anything in the nature of a holiday. Cessation of work would merely mean that the convicts would be locked in their cells.

Oral Answers to Questions — OWEN v. ODHAMS PRESS, LIMITED.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a recent lawsuit in the King's Bench Division, Owen v. Odhams Press, Limited, and another, in which evidence was given as to the publication of a so-called matrimonial paper called the "Matchmaker" and various activities connected with it; and whether he has requested the Director of Public Prosecutions to call for the papers with a view to the prosecution of the proprietors, editor, and staff of the paper?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have seen reports in the Press. The matter is not one in which I have any direct responsibility, but I will bring the hon. and gallant Member's question to the notice of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bring the summing-up of the learned Judge to the notice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, in which he passed very severe strictures on the staff of this paper and described them as acting as procurers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want to take more responsibility in this House than the law gives me, and I am not responsible for this matter at all. I cannot do more than bring the hon. and gallant Member's question, and his
supplementary question also, to the notice of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but is he not responsible as Home Secretary for proceedings in the case of activities of such a paper as this? Cannot he take ordinary police action?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I really do not think I have any responsibility in this matter. I am not a censor of the Press, and there is no suggestion here of indecency—

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Oh, yes, there is.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Not in the advertisements. I cannot do more than I have promised the hon. and gallant Member; that is, to send his question and supplementary question to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It will show the Director of Public Prosecutions what is in the hon. and gallant Member's mind.

Mr. DAY: 16.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given in the High Court in a case which the proprietor of a matrimonial agency has instituted against a weekly journal; and, in view of this evidence, will he consider the introduction of legislation making it necessary for agencies of this nature to be licensed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have seen reports in the Press. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. DAY: Does not the Home Secretary think there should be some control over agencies carried on in this way, and have there not been many cases in the past which have disclosed the scandalous dealings which were disclosed in this ease?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it would be better if hon. Members brought in a Private Bill dealing with this matter. So many things are now put on the Home Secretary that I do not want to ask the permission of the House to assume more powers than I have at present.

Mr. DAY: If a Private Bill is introduced, will the right hon. Gentleman give it his blessing and support?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will give it my careful consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE OFFENDER (R. L. HOBBS).

Mr. MALONE: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Robert Leonard Hobbs, aged 16, who, on 18th May, 1928, was sentenced at the Central Criminal Court to four years' penal servitude; and whether, seeing that the medical officer of Maidstone Prison, where he had been on remand before appearing at the Central Criminal Court, reported that his mentality was not normal, and that he was not sent to Wandsworth Prison to obtain a report from the trained psychologists there before sentence was passed, he will, in view of the special circumstances of this case, reconsider it with a view to the remission of the sentence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have seen Press reports, and I am looking into the case, but I am not yet in a position to say what, if any, action it will be right for me to take or recommend.

Mr. MALONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is usual to send first offenders to Borstal?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The question of sending offenders to Borstal is a matter for the Judge. I cannot say that it is the usual practice, but it is entirely a matter for the Judge, who takes into consideration very many points beyond those mentioned in the hon. Member's question.

Mr. MALONE: Am I not right in saying that it is usual for mental cases to go to Wandsworth?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Very often.

Oral Answers to Questions — BARCLAY WORKSHOPS FOR THE BLIND (COMPETITION).

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: 17.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the cross-word competition recently conducted on behalf of the Barclay Workshops for the
Blind, in which the receipts were announced as;£146,731 and the expenses as £136,178, including£71,000 for advertising; and whether he will inquire into this matter with a view to taking action if necessary?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have seen Press reports relating to this case. Charities for the blind are governed by the Blind Persons Act, 1920, which requires them to be registered with the county council, and I gather from the Press reports that the case has been fully before the London County Council, which is the local authority under the Act in this instance. I have no jurisdiction under the Blind Persons Act, and there is no action that I can take in the matter.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does not the Home Secretary think that he ought to take power to deal with such flagrant robberies?

Sir W. JOYNSON-H1CKS: The hon. Member again is trying to put more power into the hands of the Home Secretary. I appreciate his compliment. The Act gives authority to the London County Council, and the London County Council have already dealt with this case, and if the hon. Member has read the report he will see that they have made representations to the charity in question.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With great respect to the Home Secretary, is it not the fact that while carrying out his duties as Home Secretary he engages in all sorts of outside activities, such as raiding Arcos?

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKING MEN'S CLUBS, SCUNTHORPE (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. OLIVER: 18.
asked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that the prosecutions against a number of working men's clubs at Scunthorpe are being taken at the instance of the Home Office, he is aware that in order to obtain a conviction a police constable obtained employment in the district as a pipe fitter, and by this means induced an unemployed member of the club to enter into an illegal arrangement whereby the constable obtained a drink before he was
made a member, which resulted in the club being struck off the register; and whether he will give instructions to discontinue the employment of such methods for obtaining evidence on behalf of a Home Office prosecution?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The enforcement of the law relating to clubs is a matter for the local police, and the prosecutions mentioned were not taken at the instance of my Department. In these circumstances the second part of the question does not arise.

Mr. OLIVER: In the report of these prosecutions it is expressly stated that this campaign to strike off a large number of working men's clubs was instituted on the express instruction of the Home Office. Is that statement untrue?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Absolutely.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is wise to use for this purpose men who are unemployed and deprived of their normal livelihood?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is now clear that the matter is one for the local police.

Mr. OLIVER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question, as to whether he can use his influence with the provincial police so that this method should not be used for such trivial offences?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question is out of order. It is a matter for the local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (TEXT-BOOKS).

Mr. HASLAM: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the fact that some of the text-books on the Dominions for use in public elementary and secondary schools are not up to date; and whether he will consider calling a conference of educational authorities with a view to securing improvement in educational text-books relating to the Empire?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The Board's Consultative Committee is at present investigating the question of the selection and supply of books for use in
schools, and I think my hon. Friend will probably agree that it would be better to await the Committee's report, which I expect to be available in the autumn, before considering what action to take.

Mr. HASLAM: Do I understand my Noble Friend to say that the Committee are investigating this particular point about information concerning the Empire?

Lord E. PERCY: They are investigating the whole question of the selection of books for the schools, and I shall certainly draw their attention to my hon. Friend's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGO-SLAVIA.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

Mr. HANNON: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the proposal for the foundation of an English college in Belgrade for the education of Yugo-Slav boys in the English language, and which shall be conducted on the methods of an English public school; and, seeing that such a project will tend to the promotion of a more intimate understanding between the two countries, is he prepared to assist the proposal by any means at his disposal?

Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid that I have no information about this project other than what has appeared in the Press. I should be glad to receive any further particulars which my hon. Friend may be able to let me have.

Mr. HANNON: Is my Noble Friend aware of the very great interest taken throughout Yugo-Slavia in the English educational system and English institutions generally, and if any representations are made to him will he consider them?

Lord E. PERCY: I have said that I shall be very glad to receive any suggestions that my hon. Friend cares to make to me.

LOAN.

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: (by Private Notice) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury has been co-operating in the negotiations for a loan to Yugoslavia, or has been consulted regarding its conditions?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): No, Sir.

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been consulted or informed regarding a projected loan to Yugoslavia, one of the conditions of which is that part of the money should be used to build a strategic line to Cattaro?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): No, Sir.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In view of rumours which are about to this effect, will the hon. Gentleman suggest that if any such loan is intended it should be arranged through the League of Nations?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member ought to base his question on something more than rumour.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MIDWIVES.

Mr. DAY: 23.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to state the names of the Committee that will be set up to inquire into the general question of the training and supply of midwives?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The names of the members of tins Committee were announced in the public Press yesterday.

SMALL-PDX HOSPITALS (TUBERCULOSIS).

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 26.
asked the Minister of Health how many small-pox hospitals in this country have during the last three years been used as sanatoria for tuberculosis cases; in how many of these hospitals have the authorities had to discharge their cases of tuberculosis in order to admit cases of small-pox; is he aware that some of the tuberculosis cases have had to return to their homes as no sanatorium accommodation could be found for them; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this situation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Twenty-one small-pox hospitals have been used during the past three years for the treatment of tuberculosis, in one ease for the
summer months only. Tuberculosis patients have been removed from six of these hospitals in order to provide accommodation for small-pox cases. Of these six, at least three will not again be used for the treatment of tuberculosis patients, alternative accommodation having been provided or being in course of provision. I am aware that there is some disadvantage attaching to the use of small-pox hospitals for tuberculous patients, but when it is necessary for these hospitals to revert to their original use every effort is made to find other accommodation for the displaced patients. It is primarily a matter for the local authorities to consider what steps should be taken to avoid the possibility of some of these patients having to return to their homes.

Dr. DAVIES: Does not my right hon. Friend think that if the Vaccination Acts were more rigidly enforced he would be able to use some of this accommodation for cases of tuberculosis, which are undoubtedly of a more serious nature than cases of small-pox at the present time?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that we can so entirely neglect the possibility of the occurrence of small-pox as to be able to dispense altogether with small-pox hospitals.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend not seriously concerned as to the recent great increase of small-pox in this country and will he make further inquiries whether that increase is not largely due to inadequate vaccination?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE CENTRES.

Mr. MALONE: 29.
asked the Minister of Health for what reason he has issued a circular to the maternity and child welfare centres instructing them that no milk is to be given to mothers and babies where the family is in receipt of Poor Law relief; what is the amount spent on milk by the maternity centres throughout the country; and what is the total amount spent on the maternity and child welfare centres, both by way of grant from the Exchequer and by the local authorities; whether the guardians are authorised to spend money on milk for expectant and nursing mothers over and above reliev-
ing actual destitution; and whether he is aware that when the guardians make an allowance for milk they are obliged to allow the full retail price of milk, whereas the maternity centres are able to obtain milk for distribution under contract at a reduced price?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No such circular has been issued, but I have suggested to certain of the maternity and child welfare authorities that they should reconsider their procedure in dealing with applications for milk and refer applicants who are in receipt of Poor Law relief to the guardians, in order to avoid overlapping and waste. The net expenditure on milk and food of local authorities in England administering maternity and child welfare schemes was £331,562 for the financial year 1926–27, but this was largely in excess of the usual expenditure owing to the prolonged mining dispute during that year. The total expenditure of those local authorities on maternity and child welfare during the same year was £1,585,972, towards which Exchequer grants were paid amounting to £765,477. In addition grants amounting to £217,554 were paid to voluntary agencies in respect of this work. As regards the last two parts of the question, it is competent for the guardians in giving relief to decide, on the advice of their medical officer, whether any special need is present, arid if so to take account of that need in determining the amount and form of relief. The guardians are in no worse position than a maternity and child welfare authority because they can also purchase milk by contract for distribution to those in receipt of relief.

Mr. MALONE: While congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his return to the House, may I ask whether this is one of the first steps taken to put into practice the Prime Minister's pledge to care more for maternity?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are so many questions embodied in the one question on the Paper that I do not quite catch the application of the hon. Member's further question.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: When circularising local authorities calling attention to the necessity for examining this question, did the right hon. Gentleman also circularise boards of guardians and intimate that the advantage to be derived from maternity benefit may not be available in future?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I explained that in my answer.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most boards of guardians do take into consideration benefits to be derived in certain cases from other local government sources?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

Dr. DAVIES: Does my right hon. Friend ensure that any steps are taken to see that the milk supplied to these maternity and child welfare centres is pure milk?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a question for the maternity and welfare centres themselves.

Mr. PALIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that, if the guardians exercise a wiser discretion as to the value they place upon the food and milk supply in assessing the amount of relief requisite, the work would not be impeded as it is now?

Captain GARRO-JONES: When the right bon. Gentleman says that it is a matter for the maternity and child welfare centres, does he repudiate all over-riding responsibility to see that this is properly carried out, and, if not, will he take some action in the direction suggested by the hon. Member for the Royton Division (Dr. Davies)?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see why the hon. and gallant Member should assume that they are not being carried on properly.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RECONDITIONING.

Sir W. de FRECE: 28.
asked the Minister of Health what steps are taken by local authorities to call the attention of owners of houses needing reconditioning to the state of their property; and whether he will consider the desirability of increased publicity in respect of the ownership of houses where the provision of sanitary and habitable accommodation is not adequate?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is the duty of a local authority under the Housing and Public Health Acts to make provision for a thorough inspection to be carried out from time to time according to the circumstances of the dwellings of
their district and to take appropriate action. In the last year for which statistics are available, 1,164,875 houses were inspected under these provisions, and works of reconditioning or repair were carried out during the year for nearly 600,000 houses, and in the case of more than half of this number the necessary works were carried out as a result of co-operation between local authorities and the owners, and without the need for the issue of statutory notices. In these circumstances I do not think there would be any sufficient advantage in adopting the suggestion made in the last part of the question.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the local authorities have any power to compel owners to paint or repair property?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is it riot a fact that the tremendous numbers of statutory notices served show that the present methods of enforcing the law are not adequate, and can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, which suggests that additional measures for securing publicity should be taken to impress upon property owners the desirability of keeping the property in good repair?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did answer the last part of the question.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that some measures for increased publicity are taken, in view of the fact that the returns published by local authorities do not now give the names of the defaulting landlords?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I repeat that I do not think that is necessary.

LOANS (LOCAL GOVERNMENT CANDIDATURE).

Mr. LANSBURY: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the disabilities which are imposed upon persons who receive loans under The Housing Act, 1923, a disqualification which prevents such persons standing as candidates or serving as members of the authority advancing the loan; and whether it is his intention to introduce legislation with the object of removing such disqualification?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the position described by the hon. Member but could not promise to introduce legislation altering it.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very considerable hardship caused to people whose only offence is that they have used this means in order to supply themselves with houses?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is one of those cases in which there is a good deal to be said on both sides.

Mr. LANSBURY: I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me what there is to be said, at least on one side?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On a, proper occasion I shall be very pleased to do so.

CONTRACT PRICES.

Mr. WELLOCK: 33.
asked the Minister of Health which local authorities have realised the largest reductions in the price of houses in relation to area within the last two and a-half years; and if he will give details?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I cannot furnish the information desired by the hon. Member. It could only be made available by tabulating costs in detail over a period of 2½ years. This would involve a considerable amount of time and labour, and I do not think that the intrinsic value of the information would warrant the expense involved in obtaining it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. KELLY: 34.
asked the Minister of Health the number of widows now in receipt of a pension by reason of their children not having reached the age of 14 years, and the total number of widows in receipt of a widow's pension under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the question, the number of such pensions in payment, in England and Wales, at the 31st March last, was 81,068. As regards the second part, the total number of widows' pensions in payment, in England and Wales, at the 31st March last, was 181,977.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA (BRITISH DEBT).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of the debt owed by the Persian Government to His Majesty's Government; what proportion of this debt was incurred before, during, and after the late War; whether any arrangements for its funding or repayment have been discussed; and, if so, with what results?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have been asked to reply. I would invite the hon. and gallant Member to refer to the replies given to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) on 29th March and 17th April last, which give the required information.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In the meantime, have we not signed a treaty with the Persian Government, and has not any arrangement been come to about this £2,000,000 debt?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, not in a treaty.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the matter still in negotiation?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We have already made arrangements with the Persian Government in regard to the amount which we are ready to accept.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are they paying it yet?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, not yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — BETTING PROSECUTION, BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to a police court case, heard in Birmingham on 21st May, in which a man was fined for betting on certain premises and, at the same time, was also fined for not taking out a bookmaker's licence; and whether he will consider the advisability of revising the Betting Tax to remove this anomaly?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have read an account of this case. The persons concerned were prosecuted and fined for using premises for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto contrary to the
Betting Act, 1853. They were also prosecuted and fined for acting as bookmakers without a certificate, contrary to the Finance Act, 1926. I can see nothing anomalous in this.

Mr. DAY: Is it not the fact that the Treasury or the Income Tax authorities will not issue a betting certificate where there has been illegal betting?

Mr. SAMUEL: That is another question. That is not the question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CELANESE, LIMITED.

Mr. WELLOCK: 39.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the late representative of His Majesty's Government on the board of directors of British Celanese, Limited, was a civil servant; whether he received any remuneration for his services on the board; and, if so, how much, and by whom was it paid?

Mr. SAMUEL: This question is not in the form in which it appeared on the Paper yesterday (for which I had prepared a reply). Therefore I have not had the time to obtain the information for to-day's question. If the hon. Member will repeat the question I will obtain the information.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW SILVER COINAGE.

Mr. MAXTON: 40.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the loss of weight in one shilling of the new coinage as compared with the old; and if any complaints have been received from users of automatic machines and gas meters as to the unsuitability of the new coins?

Mr. SAMUEL: There has been no change in the weight of the shilling, which remains as fixed in 1816. No complaints have been received.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PEDIGREE STOOK (EXPORTS).

Mr. A. M. WILLIAMS: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture which countries have decided to accept our pedigree stock in consequence of the erection of the London quarantine station?

Captain BOWYER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 26th of April last to the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard), a copy of which will be sent to him. The position has not altered since that date.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATISTICS.

Sir W. de FRECE: 46.
asked the Minister of Labour if, taking the number of registered unemployed, he can give some indication of the numbers in the following age periods: 20 to 30, 30 to 40, 40 to 50, and 50 to 60 years of age?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): As the reply is somewhat long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the figures have increased?

Mr. BETTERTON: This answer is very long and perhaps the hon. Member will await its circulation.

Mr. DAY: So are the figures.

Following is the reply:

Statistics showing the ages of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges are not regularly obtained, but an investigation regarding claimants for unemployment benefit made on a sample basis at the beginning of April, 1927, showed that at that date 29.3 per cent. of the males and 47.1 per cent. of the females were aged 20 to 29 inclusive, 19.3 per cent. of the males and 15.5 per cent. of the females were aged 30 to 39, 17.5 per cent, of the males and 8.6 per cent. of the females were aged 40 to 49, and 16.3 per cent. of the males and 4.9 per cent. of the females were aged 50 to 59. At 14th May, 1928, the claimants to benefit on the registers of Employment Exchanges included 877,165 males and 145,553 females; and it is probable that the proportions within the age groups mentioned, at that date, did not differ greatly from those found in April, 1927.

COALFIELDS, EUROPE AND AMERICA.

Mr. WELLOCK: 54.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can give figures showing the state of unemployment in the coalfields of Europe and of America?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am having the available information collated, and will communicate it to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 50.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government has drawn up its detailed proposals for the revision of the Washington Hours Convention; if so, whether these proposals have now been communicated to the International Labour Office; and what these proposals are?

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 48.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any statement will be made at the forthcoming meeting of the governing body or at the annual session of the International Labour Conference of the position of the Government in relation to the Washington Hours Convention?

Mr. BETTERTON: Since I stated the position of the Government to the governing body in February, they have adopted a form of procedure for the revision of draft International Labour Conventions. At the meeting next week His Majesty's Government will press for the application of this procedure to the Washington Hours Convention at the earliest opportunity, and if that proposal is adopted they will be prepared in due course to announce in detail their views as to the form that revision should take.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will a copy of these suggestions be submitted to the House before they are sent to Geneva?

Mr. BETTERTON: It will be some time before they are sent, and perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the question in the meantime.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.

Mr. KELLY: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women employed in the theatrical and music-
hall industry; and what are the number of hours considered as the normal working week for employés such as attendants and doorkeepers in the London area?

Mr. BETTERTON: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 1st May to the hon. Member for Southwark Central (Mr. Day). The normal agreed hours of doorkeepers and attendants in the West-End theatres are 3½ or 3¾ per performance and in the London music halls 5½ per night performance and 3 or 3½ per matinee. The weekly hours depend on the number of performances.

Mr. KELLY: In view of the long hours worked by these doorkeepers, would the hon. Gentleman have some investigation made, so that we may know what is happening in connection with these music halls and theatres?

Mr. BETTERTON: As I stated in the answer, we can only go on the number of performances, and I cannot say, without further inquiry, whether the hours are long or not.

Mr. DAY: Is it not the case that the answer which the hon. Gentleman gave me only referred to the numbers in the "Entertainments and Sports" section; and has he any statistics at all which would show the number in the theatrical and music-hall industry?

Mr. BETTERTON: What I communicated to the hon. Member on 1st May was:
The theatrical and music-hall professions are not separately distinguished in the statistics of employment and unemployment derived from the working of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, but are included in the general group Entertainments and Sport"; and the information desired is therefore not available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1924; col. 1534, Vol. 216.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH SERVICES (RETURNS).

Mr. CROOKE: 56.
asked the Postmaster-General the amount of income from telephone and telegraph returns for the year 1927?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The ap-
proximate revenue for the financial year 1927–28 was:

Telegraph — £6,100,000, including £1,235,000 in respect of wireless receiving licences.
Telephone.—£18,650,000.
These figures are subject to some adjustment for the commercial accounts.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (GILGIT PASS).

Mr. MAXTON: 59.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the closing of the Gilgit Pass has been decided by the Government of India; and, if so, the reason for its being closed?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I am not aware of any decision of the nature suggested. But the number of travellers that can be allowed to use the Gilgit route has to be strictly limited to avoid putting an undue strain on local resources in the way of supply and transport.

Mr. MAXTON: Is the decision in this matter taken by the Government of India or by the local authorities?

Earl WINTERTON: It is taken by the Government of India, and, as far as I know, no fresh decision has been taken recently. The reason for the fact stated in the question is, I am sure, one with which the hon. Member will sympathise, namely, to prevent an undue strain being put on the local inhabitants in the way of supply and transport.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Japanese Government has made any communication to His Majesty's Government with reference to their contemplated actions in Manchuria, as expressed in a recent Note to the Northern and Nationalist Governments of China in the event of the Nationalist armies advancing into Manchuria; and, if so, what is its nature and the reply of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Particulars of the Japanese Prime Minister's communication were given in reply to the
hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Forrest) yesterday. The statement did not require a reply.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are the Government satisfied that the interests of British traders are being preserved in the two provinces of Shangtung and Manchuria; and are we taking any steps to watch over those-interests?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It was explicitly explained in the communication from the Japanese Government that their action was in order that Manchuria should cot be involved in civil war.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the hon. Gentleman see that this virtually means a Japanese protectorate over Manchuria; and where do our rights come in then?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION).

Sir RENNELL ROOD: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the proposed application of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919, to persons in the Diplomatic Service as they apply to other persons in the permanent Civil Service of the State will entail the retirement of the former at the age of 65 instead of, as heretofore, at 70?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The power to continue to employ members of the Service after they have reached the age of 65 will not be affected by the Bill now under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUBVERSIVE PROPAGANDA (RUSSIAN MONEY).

Sir W. DAVISON: (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now inform the House as to the results of his inquiry into the sources from which the Russian Soviet Government finance subversive propaganda in this country, and what action he proposes to take to prevent similar activities on the part of the Soviet authorities in the future?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Major Kindersley) has a question on this subject on the Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: What number?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is No. 7—
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he can give the House any further information as to the transmission of money to Communist agents by a Russian hank in this country.
This question was not asked, and my point was whether, in that case, the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) is in order in asking his question as a private notice question?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it covers exactly the same ground, although there is some similarity.

Sir W. DAVISON: On a point of Order. Mine is a wider question, and the Home Secretary previously said that he would give this information before the House rose for Whitsuntide.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I had hoped to make a statement before the House rose, but, as the House knows, I have been very pressed lately, and I am afraid that I must ask my hon. Friend to postpone his question. I am taking away a mass of papers on this subject to read during the holidays.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is continuing to receive the voluntary cooperation and assistance of the bank concerned in making his inquiries?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes. Up to the day before yesterday I received information which they were good enough to supply.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the Home Secretary be advised by me and not spend his holiday in any such foolish way?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am always grateful to the hon. Member for his advice and co-operation.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury if, when the statement is made on this matter, which so interests
hon. Members in this House, it can be made at a time when there will be a possibility of delving further into the matter? Could it be debated, as it is a very important matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): I must ask for notice of that question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the absence of the Prime Minister, whether he can state the business to be taken when the House reassembles after Whitsuntide?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): On Tuesday, 5th June, there will be the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday and Thursday, 6th and 7th June respectively, until 7.30 p.m. on the Thursday, will be occupied by the Second Reading of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill—the final title of that Measure—and after 7.30 p.m. the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution for that Bill and other Orders on the Paper will be taken.
The business to be taken on Friday will be announced later.

Mr. CLYNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the nature of the Finance Bill and the short time that is allotted for it, and will he reconsider that announcement?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The allocation of one day for the Finance Bill was not decided upon until after precedents had been extensively examined. One sitting only was given in 1927, in 1025, in 1924, in 1923, and in 1921, and for six years almost continuously preceding those years. In 1925, we had the Silk Duty, a most complicated tax—far more complicated than the Petrol Tax—but in that case only one sitting was given; and in 1926 there was the Betting Duty, which raised controversies of a different order from anything with which we are dealing now. In that case, one sitting and four hours were given to the Finance Bill, but that, the right hon. Gentleman will remember, was due to the fact that the general strike had intervened between
the introduction of the Budget and the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. The Opposition decided not to discuss the Budget Resolutions at any length, and consequently a rather more lavish allowance was made on the Second Reading. In all the circumstances, I can hold out no expectation that the Government will be able to give more than one day this year.

WESTERN HIGHLANDS TRANSPORT (COMMITTEE).

Mr. MACPHERSON: I apologise for not giving notice of this question, but I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is proposed to announce the names of the Select Committee on Western Highlands transport, and what are the terms of reference; and will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that those terms should not be limited to the narrow question of the MacBrayne contract, but should extend to the general question?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I understand that the terms of reference and the names of the Committee proposed will be on the Paper when the House reassembles.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the inadvisability of limiting the terms of reference to the MacBrayne contract and see to it that they cover the whole question of the Western Highlands transport?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I understand the position, the House came to a certain Resolution, and the Amendment which was accepted would be the measure of the remit to the Committee, but I do not anticipate that there will be any hampering of their work.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I emphasise the request that the terms of reference should not exclude alternative schemes? It may be possible that much better terms may be got, and will the terms be broad enough for other proposals to be put up?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that the terms will be on the Paper on 6th June, and the House will then have an opportunity of judging for itself.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Weaver Navigation Bill,

Great Western Railway (Swansea North Dock Abandonment) Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision for the reorganisation of educational and other endowments in Scotland." [Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]

Private Bills (Consolidation),—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of five Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider all Private Bills for the conclusive purpose of consolidating the provisions of existing Private Acts of Parliament, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE).

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday, 5th June."—[Mr. Churchill.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsen.]

COAL INDUSTRY.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I do not need to make any apology for introducing the subject of the condition of the mining areas before the House rises for its Whitsuntide holiday. I am quite willing to agree, and it is only fair to say, that Members on all sides of the House are interested sufficiently in this question to debate it to-day. We, on these benches, are not so anxious to put a case to the ordinary Member on the opposite side as we are to try and influence the Government to take some stronger line to deal with this question than they have done up to now. The situation in the mining districts is tragic, and unfortunately there is not a single bright light anywhere in the country. There are some cases where the unemployment problem is not as severe as elsewhere. It would be infinitely more tragic if all of them were in the unfortunate position in which Wales, Northumberland and Durham, and a large part of Scotland find themselves. In every one of the areas there is destitution, misery, poverty, and almost an abandonment of hope, such as can never before be remembered in mining experience. It is a tragedy, for the men are working in what is described as a basic industry, in which the fortunes of the country are largely bound up. If that be so, it does not become merely a mining question, but a national question, and it is from this standpoint, and from the point of view of the effect on the nation, that we approach this subject, in the hope that the Government will take a more forward, action than they have done recently.
I intend to speak mostly of the position in Scotland, and others of my Friends will deal with other parts of the country with the local conditions of which they are better acquainted. In Scotland 14 years ago, we had 40 per cent. more men working in the mines
than to-day, according to the statistics supplied by the Government. Fourteen years ago, 25 out of every 100 miners in Scotland joined up voluntarily, and the greater proportion of them served for four years. At the end of that time, they came back, expecting that the promises that were made during the War would be put into operation. Unfortunately, however, since the War between this country and Germany, some sections in control of our industries have become so much habituated to the idea of war, that they have transferred the war from the other side of the English Channel to our own country, and there has been constant war in the mining districts since 1919. I will not enter into the merits of the various disputes that have arisen between the miners and the employers, but I would remind the House that, on every occasion when a dispute arose between the employers in the mining industry and the men, the vast proportion of Members on the other side, and the Press generally, have taken the line that the miners were wrong, and that the attitude adopted by the Government at the time, whether a Liberal, Coalition or Conservative Government, was right. Events have shown that the support given by the Government to the employers has not been an altogether wise policy.
I remember that in 1921 we were fighting for what is called a pool, and it was said that it was uneconomic. We find the pool in operation in Scotland to-day; the Scottish coalowners have agreed to a pooling system, and I find that the ablest, and some of the widest read newspapers in the West of Scotland, are justifying the action of the employers. This is a complete change of attitude on their part. They justify it on the ground that the employers are seeking to reduce the output, and thus raise prices, and consequently secure profits. I have on many occasions advocated a restriction of output with exactly the same object of securing fair prices for the commodity produced by the miners, and sufficient, at least, to give him a fair wage, and to allow a sufficiently reasonable profit to those who have invested their capital in the industry. On every occasion, however, that we on this side, or the miners' leaders in Scotland, advocated that policy, we found ourselves bitterly opposed by the Press and the representatives of industrial and commercial in-
terests in Scotland. Some time ago, one of the most prominent coalowners in the West of Scotland wrote some articles for the "Glasgow Herald," and they were pretty widely read. He is a man who has a considerable knowledge of the mining industry, and though we do not agree with him on most of the subjects that arise between us, we are bound to admit that he is a very competent and capable man. In the course of these articles he made the rather interesting admission that the individual output of the miners in Scotland had increased from 1913 to 1927 by two cwt. per man per shift. That is an admission that the post-War miner in the West of Scotland is a better miner than the pre-War miner.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: indicated dissent.

Mr. GRAHAM: I see my hon. Friend shaking his head; he may think that that is a strong statement to make, but that is the line that has been taken by most of our opponents during the last six or seven years. They have continually said that the trouble in the mining industry was due to the reduction in the individual output, and here we have one of the most prominent employers in the industry lending his name to the statement that, as between 1913 and 1927, the post-War miner is producing two cwt. per man more per shift. The "Glasgow Herald" published a leading article on 12th May this year on the coalowners of Scotland, in which they said:
The fundamental factor in the situation was that a very great part of Scotland's coal output was being produced at a lass, and that deficits were being incurred which could only continue at the cost of a large number of collieries permanently closing down. In order to avoid such a disaster the owners devised the present scheme of temporarily putting out of operation the poorest collieries, but so compensating them that they are able to remain on a care and maintenance basis until demand sufficiently revives to offer a market for their product.
I challenge that statement. They are not closing the poorest collieries; they are closing the collieries that are economic in the truest sense. If some of the collieries that I know are being closed on the grounds that they are uneconomic, there is not such a thing as an economic colliery working in the West of Scotland. I do not do more than simply challenge
the accuracy of the statement in the "Glasgow Herald." The time has come when ordinary common sense people might be appointed to undertake some sort of inquiry, in place of the experts who have been far too common in all the inquiries hitherto held into the mining industry. There ought to be an inquiry into the actual position in each mining area, and then I think it would be found that there was a strong volume of opinion, not merely in the mining industry itself, but amongst those who are to a large extent dependent upon it, in favour of much more drastic action being taken to relieve the situation than the Government have been willing to take.
The question does not affect miners alone; it reacts upon every shopkeeper, upon practically every member of the community, in each of these mining areas; and we are approaching a period—I think the Secretary of State far Scotland will be able to corroborate this if he takes part in this discussion—when most parishes in the mining areas in the West of Scotland are becoming bankrupt. The social necessities which ought to be provided by the local authorities are not being provided, because they have not the money, and there does not seem to be any hope that they will get it. The serious conditions existing are reacting upon persons who a few years ago did not imagine they were ever likely to be troubled with the difficulties which beset the miners, or they would have taken a very different line during the period when the miners were engaged in dispute. In Lanarkshire since 1913, 71 collieries, which employed 23,839 men, have been closed; in the County of Stirling, five collieries, employing 3,350 men; in West Lothian four collieries, employing 735 men; in Dumbarton four collieries employing 244 men; and in Renfrew three collieries employing 731 men. Those five counties do not comprise the whole mining area of Scotland, because Fife and Ayrshire are in an equally bad position. In some respects, I dare say, Fife is worse than most places, certainly it is as bad as some of the worst districts in the County of Lanark, and in some of those districts where 100 men were at work last year only 25 are working to-day; that is to say, three men out of every four are idle in consequence of this so-called pooling arrangement under which coal-owners are closing down pits which, I
repeat, are not uneconomic. I have in my own constituency a district where nearly 4,000 persons were working last year, but now there are fewer than 1,000, though I venture to say there is not a district in the whole of the coalfield which has better miners or where coal has been produced at a less cost.
12.0 n.
There ought to be some inquiry by the Government into the operations of the pooling scheme set up in the various areas. I am speaking particularly for Scotland. We have a National Conciliation Board and are told by the Chairman that it is the function of both sides of that Board to co-operate and work together for the benefit and the prosperity of the industry. He can speak very well on that subject, he has a wonderfully fine vocabulary; but when it comes to putting into operation a scheme like that which is now working such havoc in Scotland, our side of the Board is not called into consultation at all. We know nothing at all as to the real motives animating the men responsible for putting this pool into operation. I hope that as a result of to-day's discussion the situation in each of the coal areas will be given very serious consideration by the Government between now and the reassembling of the House after the Adjournment. We on this side are willing to co-operate, if we are considered worthy of being asked to give co-operation. We are anxious that the industry should be made as prosperous as possible. If there be anything which the coal-owners can suggest which will be of real value in bringing back prosperity to the industry and enabling it to employ a larger number of men, they will find no opposition from us, they will have our co-operation and support. As I said on the last occasion when I was speaking on this matter, when it comes to a question of the employers and the workmen considering the situation and the Government are called in to give their advice, they look with contempt, apparently, on the assistance proffered from this side of the House.
I have almost finished the time allotted to me, and I have only to say that I hope this short discussion will have some influence on hon. Members opposite, and that if nothing is done
between now and the reassembling of the House, and we are compelled to raise this matter again immediately the House meets, we shall then get such support from hon. Members opposite as will compel the Government to take some action to deal with the serious situation existing in the mining areas of Britain. We only ask them to look at this matter from a somewhat similar standpoint to that which was adopted in the case which was discussed a week ago yesterday. The Savidge case is not a political case; the whole House was equally interested in it, and I think I am correct in saying the whole House was unanimous in demanding that justice should be done to an individual. Surely to God, if it be right and wise that justice should he clone to an individual, and I say it is, it is equally right that justice should he done to more than a million individuals who have rendered, are rendering, and are willing to render useful service to this community. Up to the present, all we have got is any amount of advice from people who do not understand our position, but no real attempt to give something like justice has yet been made, and I hope that before the end of this Parliament something of a really serious character will be attempted by the Government with a view to getting a solution of the present difficulties in the mining areas.

Mr. SMILLIE: I think I can claim that during the few years I have had the honour of sitting in this House I have not unnecessarily taken up its time, and to-day I will not detain it for long, not because there is not a great deal to say on this question, but because of the limited time at our disposal and the necessity for giving the House an opportunity to hear the views of the miners from each of the districts of the country. I think I may claim that I have had a considerable amount of experience in mining matters. I have known the mining industry, either locally or nationally, for the last 54 years, in the first place as a working miner, and afterwards as an official of the miners' organisation. I have been not merely a keen student from personal observation of the mining industry, but I have felt it to be my duty to read the early history of the mining industry prior to
my own personal knowledge of it, and I can confirm the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Hamilton Division of Lanark (Mr. D. Graham) that never in my experience has the situation in the mining industry been worse than it is to-day. Widespread unemployment does not apply to one or two districts, but it is almost universal throughout the mining industry. It is worse in some districts than others, but it is fairly general over the whole of the industry. The time for which this depression has lasted in many of the districts justifies me in saying that never before in the mining industry have we had such a serious situation to face as we have at the present time.
The time at our disposal for discussion is limited, and I desire to allow ample time to other speakers; but I would like to say a word or two in connection with the situation in the important coalfield of Northumberland. In that coalfield there are some 25 per cent. of the mine workers idle at the present time. I have information from that county which in all probability may be taken as one above the average in steady employment for a period of years, and certainly it is up to the average so far as the skill and ability of the mine workers and the respectability of the mining population are concerned. In that county there is a considerable amount of privation, amounting in many cases to hunger, among the miners' families. Unless we are hypocrites in this House and unless the British people are hypocrites, generally speaking all children are our children, as those of us profess who worship and pray. The children in the mining districts or in the slums of any city in the world are our children, and it is the business of this House and the nation to make sure, as far as possible, that all children are well-fed, well-clothed, well-housed and well-educated. I have heard the prayer offered up in this House "Give peace in our time, O Lord." That would seem to indicate to me that those who pray "Give peace in our time, O Lord" are putting the responsibility for international war and war in industry on the Almighty, and shirking their own responsibilities. International war and industrial war are not the fault of the Almighty, and the Almighty is not going to interfere at all. In this connection, I
would like to remind hon. Members of Holy Willie's Prayer. The House knows how our Scottish people used to have long conversation with the Almighty in order to come to an agreement with Him when they desired sometimes in their own interests, and they used to exclaim:
O Lord, remember me and mine,
With blessings temporal and divine,
And all the glory will be thine, Amen.
At any rate, they were prepared to give the Almighty the glory. I desire that there should be peace in industry. I have probably been more blamed during a number of years for preventing peace and spreading disputes in industry than any other man breathing, but I can assure the House that I have never desired to have war in the mining industry, provided it could be avoided. We cannot have peace in industry so long as the children in that industry are suffering from hunger. In the county of Northumberland, which is rather small as compared with many of the larger counties, I am informed, on the authority of Mr. William Straker, a very able man who I am sure would not exaggerate, that where in former years the people have been fairly well off, and accumulated savings in the co-operative societies and the Post Office Savings Bank, generally speaking, all that money has gone. That state of things applies particularly to the mining areas, and in many cases even the goods and chattels of those poor people have been sold in order to prevent starvation among their children. I am informed that in the county of Northumberland the people are suffering from malnutrition, not to such an extent as in many other mining counties, but I know that in my county there are many children going without boots, or at least they are badly shod and badly clothed, and in this condition they have to go to school. I make an appeal on behalf of those children. Mrs. Elizabeth Browning wrote many years ago:
Do ye hear the children weeping, O my brothers,
Ere the sorrow comes with years?
They are leaning their young heads against their mothers,
And that cannot stop their tears.
Well, my brothers, the children are weeping to-day, and the mothers are at their wits' end to know how to provide food and clothing for them. They desire to send their children as decently to school as the children of other people
are sent, and we contend that they are entitled to be in a position to do that. We may be asked: "What do you propose?" I do not think it is our business to propose. I think it is the business of the Government, if they are convinced that the state of things is such as we have described, to say what is to be done in this matter. I deny altogether that it is through lack of food and clothing in the country that those children are suffering from hunger to-day. It is because of the fault of distribution of the wealth of the country, not the fault of the Almighty who has provided all that is necessary. The skill of the workers of the country applied to the raw material can produce, and does produce, enough and to spare of what we call material wealth to provide for every man, woman and child in the country, and we claim, on behalf of the children of our people, that they have as much right to the good things of life as any class of children in the country.
I want to appeal to the heart of the House of Commons. I do not think there is any Member sitting on either side of this House who could comfortably take a good meal if he knew that there was a starving child of any kind outside, and who would not be prepared to say, "This child must be the first to receive food before I touch any." Well, there are tens of thousands of children who are being insufficiently fed, and who are badly clothed. I want Members of this House to picture the position of a little child of a miner going to school underfed, with his clothes ragged, with his boots, if he has any, torn, sitting side by side with children of what are called respectable people, although no more respectable than the people of that child. I would appeal to the heart of the House of Commons, and to the heart of the nation, that the time has come when something must be done to relieve the serious state of matters that exists in our mining districts. It ought not to be the responsibility of any particular locality to deal with the victims of unemployment. It ought to be a national charge, and I appeal to the Government to give it serious consideration, and to do their utmost to endeavour to make
sure that the children and the womenfolk of our unemployed miners will have the care to which they are entitled.

Mr. SKELTON: It is, of course, obvious that one cannot speak with the authority of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Smillie), but I cannot help thinking that it is the duty of any Member of this House who can make even the smallest contribution to the discussion to do so. I, therefore, rise only to repeat, as briefly as I can, observations which, in one form or another, I have often made in this House. We are well aware of the size and difficulty of the problems connected with the great number of miners who are now, and have been for long, unemployed. I do not believe that there is any one general, universal cure. Possibly, like many other political problems, it is one which has to be tackled piecemeal, and the piece I suggest is, I agree, only a very small piece. But in such a problem, I cannot believe it is right to overlook any method by which any considerable number of unemployed miners and their families can be, given a permanent and satisfactory way of life in substitution of the industry which they have lost. It is my opinion—and, I am afraid, I am adamant in this matter—that it is possible in this country to make arrangements to settle a certain number of miners' families with success upon the land. I am sure it is true, and there is, indeed, as I have often said in this House, abundant evidence that it can be done.
In the general work of land settlement, mainly ex-service, which has gone on since the War, it has so happened that a certain number of men whose previous experience was purely urban has made good when settled on the land. When you go into the facts you find that amongst that number of urban trained men, there is a certain number of miners as well as a certain number of those in other urban industries. That being so, it is surely worth while to see whether it is not possible to frame some scheme carefully, on a small scale to begin with, taking every precaution against extravagance, taking every precaution against waste and taking every precaution that common sense can conceive whereby even a few hundred families of miners could be put upon the land in this country, and given a chance of cultivating it.
I have often given examples in this House, and I will not repeat those I have already given, but I cannot forbear to mention a case, not, it is true, of a miner, but of another man of urban experience which I heard in my own constituency the other day, and I beg those who are responsible for dealing with the mining problem to take this kind of case into consideration. A working engineer returns from the War and cannot find employment. His mother has a certain amount of savings. The opportunity opens for the purchase of 10 acres of land, six miles out of the town of Forfar. He purchases them. He builds his own house. He is enabled subsequently to purchase 10 acres more. On those 20 acres, he has been for the last five years engaged in a very special form of agricultural work, the cultivation of raspberries. He is making thoroughly good; he is thoroughly happy. I had this only last Saturday from his brother-in-law who is a gardener in my constituency. The man is thoroughly happy, and is relieved from the anxiety of his previous urban employment. He is out of the engineering labour market. He is safely established on the land, and is making good. The savings of his mother are not thrown away; they are invested in even what to-day is one of the safest forms of investment.
If one searches for examples, one will find countless examples of men of urban training who can make good on small parcels of land, and I venture to say, as I have said before, that it is a mistake for the Government not to try to work out a scheme whereby a few hundreds or thousands of our mining families could be put upon the land. I have often said, and I know that mining Members agree, that there are characteristics of the miner's life and habits which make him peculiarly suitable for life on the land. That is all agreed. It is agreed that they can succeed if you select the right men. The only problem is how to do it with any proper regard for economy. That is the problem which has to be worked out. I do believe we ought to be considering how a certain amount of land settlement for urban people can be done in this country, without imposing too great an expense upon the State. That problem, at any rate, ought to be considered, but I am afraid it is not being considered, and I regret very much to
hear what, I think, is the case, that the Industrial Transference Board has turned down and set aside the question of trying to settle a certain number of unemployed industrialists on British land. I am afraid that is true, and, if so, I deeply regret it. But if the Industrial Transference Board has come to that decision, it does not at all relieve the Government of their responsibility.
I think I know too much about land settlement in Scotland, and some of its failures and extravagances, to urge a too large scale policy to begin with. I only urge consideration. I only urge that the question of expense should be thoroughly worked out, and that experiments should be made. For my own part, being a Conservative, and therefore prepared to move slowly, I do not care if the experiments begin on a small scale. But do let us have some experiments made. Even if only a small proportion succeed —with care, I do not see why all should not succeed—we shall have done something to deal, if only in a small way, with this question of unemployed miners. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the other Members of the Government present today to look at this matter afresh, to look at the facts, to look at the evidence, and, if necessary, to set up a committee to go into the thing afresh and without prejudice. I am satisfied that if that be done, it is possible to settle a certain number of miners' families with success upon the land of this country, with the result that it will increase the production of wealth from the land, increase the home market, relieve both unemployment insurance and parish relief, and do something towards what, I believe, is the main problem of the twentieth century—the re-colonisation of England and Scotland.

Mr. TINKER: I am sure the House generally is weary of hearing the mining question raised so often. Personally, I feel both weary and heart-sick. We know very well it is not because this matter has not been brought up in this House. On 23rd March, we deliberated on the eight hours' question, and, on 26th March, we deliberated on the distress in the mining areas, and no one offered a word of objection to the case that was made out. I remember the Minister of Health referring on that
occasion to the terrible distress in South Wales as being only typical of what was happening in all the mining areas. That is why we have to come here from time to time to point out the chronic crisis in the coal industry. A crisis is generally looked upon as being either a strike or a lockout, but on this occasion it is neither. The whole thing has broken down, and one wants to know what is going to happen. In our minds, behind all this is the thought, first of all, that the mining industry up to the last 20 years has been the foundation of all the other industries; secondly, that the coal-owners gained a complete victory in the last dispute; and thirdly, that there is not one coalowner who can say that under present conditions there is any hope for the industry.
We are faced with these three things, and the coalowners, having secured a complete victory, followed that up step by step. Before the Goal Commission they claimed certain things. In the first place, they wanted district settlements: secondly, they wanted a longer working day; and, thirdly, they wanted the 1921 Agreement. The Commission did not agree, and no settlement was arrived at. The Prime Minister then submitted to Mr. Smith, the Miners' President, the conditions under which the coalowners would accept a settlement, and the only thing on which they gave way was that they were willing to have a national agreement. They wanted, however, the eight-hour day and the 1921 wages, and, as the struggle went on, they succeeded in obtaining all their three original points, namely, district settlements, the 1921 Agreement, and a longer working day. The coal-owners having got all this, one did expect some kind of success in the coal industry, because their contention was that, if the output increased, they could outsell the foreign competitor. We increased our output from 18 cwt., in round figures, to 20 cwt., and so we gave all that the coalowners asked, but then they set about pushing out the foreign competitor. It was quite evident to us, however, that the foreign competitor, having got into the field, did not intend to be pushed out—he was going to have his place in the sun; and events have proved that to be the case.
All that the coalowners succeeded in doing was to push the foreigner back for a short period, but he has come back again, and the industry is left in exactly the same position.
This Government and previous Governments have not had the foresight to visualise what was happening in the coal industry, but it has been quite evident for a number of years that under our present system the industry could not hope to succeed. I have argued for many years that we are witnessing a change something like that which was brought about by the introduction of the steam engine. We can no longer afford to burn coal in its raw state, and attempts ought to be made to get the by-products, and especially the oil products, and, if the Government had been far-seeing, they might have succeeded in that way in establishing the position of the coal industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is making in the Budget a slight step in that direction. Some of my hon. Friend on this side may not agree with that, but, as I see it, the only hope for the coal industry is on these lines, that is to say, the working out of methods for the production of oil from the coal. That ought to have been done many years ago, before the mine-workers were driven down to this point.
I want to give one or two instances of what is happening in the industry. Last week I brought to the notice of the Home Secretary several compensation cases where the wages were so low that the amount of compensation paid was very slight indeed. I have now two cases that I am submitting to the Home Secretary. One is that of a young man 20 years of age, who was supporting his father and mother, and whose average weekly earnings at the time when he was killed amounted to 28s. 3d. He was getting no unemployment benefit, because his work was intermittent. The amount of compensation paid in that case was £220, and there can be no question in regard to that, because that was the amount submitted by the employer. The other case is that of a man with a wife and child. The amount of his average weekly earnings submitted in the claim for compensation was 18s. 9d., and his dependants will get £200, because that is the minimum amount. A third case is
that of a young lad 15 years of age, who lost a finger in the mine when he was 14, after having been down for one week. He is now working in the mine, and his mother has sent me a letter asking if I can get the case settled by a lump sum, because she says it is impossible for them to live on what he is earning. The wage for that lad, 15 years of age, is 2s. 10d. per day, and, as he is only getting 2½ days' work a week, his weekly earnings are only about 7s. He is getting no unemployment pay, as he is under 16 years of age.
That is the position in Lancashire. It has got so bad that, while we used to meet the employers on the Ascertainment. Board, we have now withdrawn from that, because the debt is so big that it is not worth our while to go on, and the employers have gone so far as to say that, because the debt is so big, they will, at the end of 12 months, wipe off the previous 12 months, and only carry forward the debt for the current 12 months. The position reminds me very vividly of a tale that I once read in one of Jack London's books. He describes the scene where people are rushing to the goldfields. The sledge, with its horses, has just reached a frozen lake on the trail, and, just as they get to the middle of the lake, owing to the thaw having set in, sledge, horses, and men go through. The description is, "The bottom of the trail had fallen out." So far as the coal industry is concerned, that fits it accurately—the bottom has fallen out of the coal industry; and it is for the Government and the employers, who have won all the way through, to set to and find out in what way prosperity can be restored to the industry, and what can be done for the miners who are suffering so acutely at the present time.

Mr. LUNN: I do not think it is necessary for me to continue on the lines on which the position of the coal industry was so admirably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Smillie). The conditions in the industry are appalling everywhere; homes are desolate, and children and women are suffering. There are 250,000 men unemployed, and I think it is admitted that there are more than 200,000 who are not likely to be employed in the industry
again. The Government may not be the cause, but there are many men receiving pensions whose maladies or sufferings or injuries were aggravated as the result of the War, and the Government, in every action they have taken with regard to the mining industry, have aggravated the position. After the many appeals that we have made, it is time that we not only appealed to the Government, but exposed the Government for its actions in every connection with regard to this industry.
I come from a county which is supposed to be the best in the mining industry, but in the county of Yorkshire we have over 20,000 miners unemployed, we have no funds in the trade union to assist them, and victimisation of a character which I have never seen for more than 40 years is being imposed by the employers. We are told that the Industrial Transference Board will publish its report before long, but the only part of the country to which it is suggested they can transfer men is the new Doncaster coalfield, and yet there are thousands of men in that area who are unemployed. I think it would be better to find work for the men in Yorkshire before asking people to come from small homes in Durham or in South Wales to a place where employment cannot be guaranteed even in that county, where we are at our wits' end to know what is going to be done.
I want to say a word about what was suggested in the speech of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton), whom I congratulate on his persistence in raising this matter of finding alternative work for people who are unemployed. There are tens of thousands of acres of land in this country which are not cultivated as they might be, and there are tens of thousands of idle hands that could be better employed in producing food, which we are now purchasing in increasing quantities from overseas and some of which might be produced at home. I am much interested, and take a very active part, in the question of emigration, and I would like to see schemes arranged of a satisfactory character for the many thousands of people who do desire to go to the Dominions. The difficulty is not here; it is in the Dominions; but I am satisfied that the Empire Settlement Act, much as
it has been condemned, has been a great blessing to some quarter of a million people who have gone to the Dominions. At the same time, we ought to have an alternative scheme of settlement at home, and our people ought to have that opportunity of choosing, although I believe, nevertheless, that the number who would desire to go overseas would be no smaller than it is to-day. I hope the hon. Member for Perth will continue to persist in this matter, not that I have any hope that this Government will do anything, but in the hope that some Government will in the near future do something to make good use of the land in the interests of the people.
The position in the mining industry is so bad that I have never seen anything like it. Wages are low—lower than they have ever been in my lifetime—in comparison with the cost of living. The Government have aided the employers in every one of their actions. Hours are lung, and men have been killed or injured in the industry in larger numbers than under the Seven Hours Act. The Government have taken the side of the employers, and have passed an Act of Parliament of a retrograde character, taking us back to the position as it was when they came into power, and I have no hope that this Government is going to do anything to remedy the state of affairs. The Secretary for Mines has never made a suggestion that would help the industry since he took up his office. He has backed up the schemes that have been set in operation by the employers. The Five Counties scheme is most un-British. It has no enterprise in it. One hon. Member said in this House that we are only going to produce the amount of coal that we can sell, but that is most un-British, so far as I understand British industrial history. We ought to be trying to sell the goods that we make or produce in this country more than we are trying at the present time, and we ought not to be restricting output or carrying on a policy of ca'canny, which is condemned when it is alleged on this side, but which is supported when it is applied to the owners. This Five Counties scheme, so far as my own county is concerned, has meant thousands more men walking the streets, and more homes suffering as a result of the absence of wages.
This Government, so far as I can see, has taken no action since it came into power except to make the position infinitely worse in the mining industry and in regard to unemployment generally. They are doing nothing to-day with regard to the provision of work. I am one of those who believe that the only cure for unemployment is work, and that work ought to be provided, because British people would rather be working and earning their livelihood than receiving money for nothing. My attitude is to urge this or any other Government to take whatever steps they can take, and there are many that can be taken, to utilise the raw material that we have at hand in order to provide work for those who are idle. It would be a comfort and a blessing to the homes of the people if the Government would only take the action which a Government of the people would immediately take, and which they have the power to take.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: There is no doubt that the mining industry is in a parlous condition. The suffering in these areas is very great, probably greater than most of us can remember. The last speaker has said that the remedy for unemployment is more work. That is a truism. The way to get more work for the miner is to sell more coals. No Government can make people buy coal if they do not want it. We are certainly getting back some of our foreign markets, because we have been able to cut coal by half-a-crown, and I believe we shall ultimately conquer in these markets, but there will be a great deal of suffering while we are conquering. The miner to-day is fighting with pick and shovel as gallantly as he fought with bayonet and bomb, but it is an economic struggle. Cannot the miners and their leaders recognise that iron and steel are twin brothers to coal, and that unless your iron and steel trade prospers you cannot expect the coal trade to be in anything like its full volume. With a prosperous iron and steel trade, your home market would consume many million tons of coal. Why does not the other side join with us, who believe in the reconstitution and resuscitation of the iron and steel trade, which is in as parlous a condition as the coal trade.
I am not speaking as an expert on these industries, but I can quote one of the greatest experts in the world, Mr.
Schwab, of the United States, who a few weeks ago, in this country, expressed his amazement that the home market for iron and steel was not protected by safeguarding as it is in the United States. He said that if the 4,000,000 tons of steel which are dumped in this country as surplus products from other countries at cut prices was being made in this country it would practically involve the employment of nearly all the unemployed miners. I have it on the authority of leading shipbuilders that they would expect by such safeguarding not an increase in the cost of steel but a reduction, because the cost of any article depends on the turnover, and, if you had your works working to the full turnover so that your overheads were diminished, you would reduce your costs, less steel would come in, and the industry would benefit. It is one of the profound regrets that I have that my own party did not adhere to the policy of 1923.
Who is to hinder the Government doing it? Who prevents it? It is the policy of hon. Members opposite. You protect your labour, and we wish you to protect it in every possible way. Why not protect the fruits of your labour? It is the very same thing. Protect your industry by preventing goods coming in. I am only advocating your principles. Cannot you come over and help us? The two great parties, Labour and Conservative, have the same views with regard to the protection of our industries. You protect the one side, and we protect the other. Cannot we join together and pay no attention to that little remnant who are busy munching the biscuit of an effete political economy? We speak for the producer, whether he is employer or employé. There is a remedy lying to your hands for the coal trade. Get at your men and create the necessary opinion in the coalfields and steel works, and we could bring such pressure on the Government as would have an immediate repercussion and almost immediately restore industry to prosperity.

Mr. LAWSON: We cannot, in the short space of time at our disposal today, discuss both the economic position of the industry and the condition of the people in the mining areas. It seems to me, when the hon. Member speaks about an effete political economy, it would be well for him to take note of the re-
sults of the economic views of his own party. The Government have held that longer hours would give more work. Everyone knows that has failed. The men are working harder to-day than ever men have worked in the mine in the time at their disposal. Their output is higher, and the wages are not only less but are diminishing as time goes on. In Durham, which was rather notable some time ago for the fact that drastic reductions of wages were granted by the arbitrator, it was believed that the reductions, added to continuous reductions of a local kind, would have the result of improving the situation. Everyone knows now, after three months' trial, that the position is worse than it was before, and, if the present position of drift is to go on, there is no hope anywhere of an improvement.
What is worse, and what causes not merely profound depression but despair in the mining areas, is that the Ministry of Mines shows a, strange lack of grip of the situation. It seems to be run with nerveless fingers. We hoped, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman was appointed, he would really take hold of the situation and apply himself to the task. We know it is a colossal one, but the feeling in the coal mining areas is that the Secretary for Mines does not seem to take hold of the situation in even the smallest detail. What have we had in the last few months? There has been a Transference Board. We have been asking what it has been doing. We learn from the Press that it has been into the mining areas. We have not even had a report. We are now going to adjourn over the holidays, and we have not the slightest idea what the Transference Board is going to do or whether it has transferred, or will transfer, a single man. As far as one can see, the net result of the Government policy is that there has been an appeal to the nation and a kind of charity fund has been set up. We do not want charity in the mining areas. Charity is simply going to irritate things. There are such demands for the small sum there is that our people say: "We had better not have anything than have it doled out in this way." They are not a charity receiving people. They like to give, but they do not like to accent that kind of dole, which is the real thing.
We are entitled to demand that the Government recognise that they have boggled this mining situation and that we are worse to-day as the result of the application of that policy. The owners adopted that policy, and it has failed. Things are going from bad to worse. There is no hope. There is no Whitsuntide holiday for us. We shall go home, and we shall meet our friends telling us the most appalling and moving tales, and we are helpless. We have a right to demand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Ministry of Mines should take hold of the Department and impress upon the Government their duty and responsibility of rescuing the people in the mining areas from the results of the Government policy during the past year or two.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Those who have listened to the whole of the Debate must have been impressed with the tone in which it has been conducted by Members who have spoken from the opposite side of the House. There has been an almost entire lack of that bitterness which has, unfortunately, been manifested in mining Debates in the past. With every fact they have put before us as a fact I think we all agree, but I ask them to consider whether it is any use blaming the Ministry of Mines and the Government for the present situation in the coax trade. Really in their hearts they must realise that when one after another they get up and say the Government must do something, it really lies with them to indicate some sort of solution that could be put into operation by the Government. I have devoted practically a lifetime to the coal industry and I am convinced—though here I stand subject to correction by anyone opposite—that there is nothing the Government can do.
Let us take the case put forward by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Smillie). I have been acquainted with the district he represents, I believe, for many more years than he has, and the position there is that in default of the Admiralty sending a squadron to bombard the ports of Danzig there is absolutely nothing the Government can do for the Northumberland coal industry, and the remark applies largely to Durham as well.
1.0 p.m.
It might be well to put before the House what the present condition of the
coal industry is, and what may be anticipated within a reasonable time in the way of a change in the situation. Hon. Members opposite have pointed out quite properly that the policy which, in conjunction with the coalowners of this country, I impressed upon the Government—and a very unwilling Government too—in 1926 was based upon three points —the extension of the working day, an economic wage, and district settlements. Although I think that hon. Members opposite are perfectly sincere in the matter, the time has arrived to inform them and to inform this House that when they talk about the coalowners and the Government in the summer of 1926 being hand and glove together, they are totally mistaken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no!"] My task through the summer of 1926 was to endeavour to keep the Government of the day on something like speaking terms with the coalowners of this country. Right back in the week before the general strike took place there was an occurrence of which, unfortunately, I am not at liberty to put the details before the House, which started a keen controversy between them—the Government thoroughly distrusting the coalowners and the coalowners thoroughly distrusting the Government. It was a very unfortunate incident, but the mistake was made and it did result, as a matter of fact, in very great controversy between the Government of this country and representatives of the coalowners throughout the whole of the summer of 1926.
To return to the three points of policy. I think that hon. Members opposite must agree with this, that bad as is the state of the coal industry to-day, it would be very much worse if the cost of the production of coal throughout this country were raised by an amount of about 2s. 6d. per ton. I think we must all agree with that. As a matter of fact, the cost of production has been very drastically reduced, particularly in the districts represented by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Smillie) and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). I think, therefore, it follows quite logically, that the reduction in the cost of production must have made the present condition in the coal industry, at any rate, some degree better than the position in which it would have been if the cost of pro-
duction had not been reduced. To the extent that the lengthening of the working hours and the reduction from the 1924 basis to the 1921 basis, to the extent that that extension of hours and reduction in rates reduced the total cost of production, to that extent the present state of the industry has been improved as compared with what it would have been if this reduction of wages and extension of hours had not taken place.
At the present moment, we are going through, perhaps, the worst part of the crisis. When the Samuel Commission in its report recommended what practically amounted to the raising of the price to the home consumer in order that we might be in a position to reduce the price of export coal, the coalowners of Great Britain—and I think quite rightly—refused to consider those recommendations unless they were absolutely forced to do so. At the same time, I did put before them, and obtain a certain amount of agreement to, this theory that it is desirable for the national welfare of this country that we should maintain a very considerable export of coal from our ports, even if it costs us a considerable amount of money to obtain that export. The reason is obvious. A great portion of the food and raw material of this country will be very much increased in price unless the ships leaving our ports can find an outward cargo to help to pay the freight of the inward cargo. Therefore that principle which I put before the coalowners in 1928, and to which they agreed to conform as far as possible, is one which this House ought constantly to bear in mind. Whatever we do we must at any rate endeavour to maintain an export of coal of certainly more than 50,000,000 tons a year, and to hope that this will increase until we are able to reach again an export of 80,000,000 to 85,000,000 tons per annum.

Mr. SHINWELL: The cost of living according to the Government has gone down and yet exports have diminished.

Mr. HOPKINSON: The cost of living has gone down mainly because we went on to a gold basis some two and a-half years ago.

Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. Gentleman's argument amounts to this—if exports diminish the cost of living will rise. The contrary has happened.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Of course it has happened, because there are dozens of other factors besides freights. [Interruption.] I say that the return to the gold standard has reduced the cost of living. Anybody who has brains to apply to this subject knows that. I say that if freights are reduced, the cost of living will also be reduced, and anyone who has brains can see that. Any number of factors apply; this is merely one of them. [interruption.] Has the hon. Member any argument to raise against that.

Mr. SHINWELL: I shall be glad to follow the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Undoubtedly, the national welfare of all classes is very much bound up in our preserving, at any rate, a considerable coal export from this country. It is not only a question of reducing inward freights. To my mind, a very great portion of our shipping industry depends upon our being able to get outward freights from our ports in the form of some bulky article such as coal. On that also depends to a certain extent the welfare of such centres as London with the banking, commercial, and insurance work which they do. In fact, it is the pivot of the whole of our industrial position, if we can, to maintain —and I do not say that it is certain that we can—our coal export, at any rate at 50,000,000 tons a year, and if possible at as much as 80,000,000 tons per annum.
As far as the five counties are concerned, an attempt is now being made to get back the exports which have been lost. The attempt has been made upon lines which those who are making it regard with considerable doubt. But the position such that the conclusion they reached was that, much as we doubt whether ultimately the scheme will be successful, at any rate, we think that in the present state of the industry it ought to be tried. The reactions of the five counties' scheme upon Northumberland and Durham and the East of Scotland have up to the present been disastrous, as the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street knows very well. Just when this scheme became effective and when the subsidising of exports from the Humber began to become a matter of practice, Northumberland and Durham were holding their prices at their ports for the first time
for many months. In fact, there was a definite tendency to get a higher price than for some time had been the case. This tendency has been checked by this scheme of the five counties of subsidising of exports; and to that extent Northumberland and Durham and the East of Scotland have been definitely and distinctly endangered by the five counties' scheme.
I think that this danger is only temporary, and for this reason, that the subsidising of the Humber exports under the five counties' scheme is based upon a levy of a certain sum imposed upon all coal sold in the home market. That is to say, that the average price of the five counties' coal sold in the home market is going to be raised by a few pence per ton in order to provide the money to subsidise the Humber exports. I think the House will agree that if any district raises by agreement between the various collieries the home price, it undoubtedly, to a certain extent, and in proportion, contracts the district's home market for this particular kind of coal. As the five counties' scheme, by raising the home price, contracts their home market, they extend, in proportion, the home market of Northumberland, Durham, and other districts outside the scheme. That is the reason why, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many of those who are concerned in the five counties' scheme—although it was worth while trying—it is quite possible that it may prove to be a complete failure.
To refer to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) said, namely, that his solution of the difficulties was simply a protective duty upon iron and steel coming into this country. He quite rightly called for the sympathy of hon. Gentlemen opposite, because, if they are Socialists, they are also protectionists. The two things go together, because protection is another name for inflation and Socialism is a synonym for the same thing, and those things which are synonyms for the same thing are synonyms for one another. Therefore, quite rightly, my hon. and learned Friend asked for the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I think that in due course, if all goes well and according to political theory, the Forty Thieves and the Socialists will
join together. The fact is, that those responsible for the conduct of the coal industry are very far from favouring Protection. What is the reason? If we are to maintain our coal exports, the last thing we should do is to limit the import of other articles into this country. That is perfectly obvious. For instance, there is still in existence, in spite of official denials, a system of licensing of our imports of coal into Germany. It is not exercised by the Germans to any large extent but it still exists and cases have been brought to me where it has been put into actual effect. When we complain, this is the answer we get: "Well, you license imports of our dyes into your country, and why should we not license imports of your coal into our country?" The answer is conclusive. There is no getting round it. I venture to suggest this to the Government: Is it better that we should lose coal exports to Germany than that we should admit German dyes into this country? This is a problem which is within the scope of the Government to solve. I think that it is far better that we should send tens of thousands of tons of coal into Germany than that we should prevent a few tons of dyes coming into this country.
There is another point where the Government may be able to help us, although I am doubtful, and that is the question of reparation coal and of reparation generally. I think we may say that, with the exception of a few Members of this House, there is hardly any thinking person in this country who does not regard the German reparations as a curse to all our industries. How a Government of a civilised country victorious in the War could ever contrive such a way of reducing the standard of living and upsetting the whole population of this country as to demand indemnities and reparations from the enemy has always baffled me since the General Election of 1918 until now. When it is realised that part of these War reparations are to be paid in the form of coal, I wonder the whole of the miners' Members opposite have not risen again and again and cursed the Government for their folly in adopting such a method of killing the coal industry of Great Britain.
I venture to suggest, first, that there are very few directions in which the Government can help that industry, and,
secondly, that these debates are now being conducted in a much better tone, I think I may claim on both sides, than they have been in the past. Before I sit down I wish to enlarge upon this matter. We all know—it is an open secret—that the various miners' unions in the various districts are going through very difficult times indeed. I assure hon. Members opposite who happen to be officials of these unions that their difficulties are regarded with very great sympathy by those whom hitherto they were inclined to regard as their enemies. The one thing that experience in industry has taught me is that it is fatal for employers of labour to interfere in any way with the internal affairs of trade unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Nottingham?"] I may say, quite candidly, that for that very reason, I have always regarded with considerable distaste certain attempts which have been made in the Midland counties to adopt a different policy. Although we employers of labour who have had experience of these matters always, as a matter of policy, abstain as carefully as we can from interfering with what are, after all, the internal affairs of trade unions, I can assure hon. Members opposite that their difficulties are known to us and that their struggles to put things right are being regarded with very great sympathy by those whom they formerly regarded as their enemies. But do not let hon. Members opposite talk too much about victimisation by colliery managers and colliery owners, when they themselves are engaged upon a very necessary purge of their own bodies from certain influences which are found to be of disadvantage to those particular trades unions. Do not let us have this position that the miners' unions, say, in Scotland, are endeavouring to cut out the canker from the body politic and then coming to this House and complaining because the coal-owners are victimising exactly the same gentlemen. I think hon. Members opposite made a mistake in bringing that point up in public to-day.
Let us be content with this, that there is no antagonism towards the district miners' unions on the part of the mine-owners. Towards the end of the great struggle in 1926 I put before the owners the proposition that in the settlement we might go, back or forward, whichever you like to call it, to pit settlements as
distinct from district settlements. The situation then was such that, as hon. Members opposite will admit, the owners in Great Britain had the choice and the miners' unions of Great Britain were undoubtedly at their mercy, so that any policy could have been dictated to them in the latter part of 1926. When I put forward the suggestion that, on the whole, it might be for the good of the industry and the ultimate good of everyone concerned, that the settlement should be made pit by pit instead of district by district, they deliberately took the opposite view. They said, "No. We think it is better that the district unions should remain in being." That was the policy which was deliberately adopted towards the end of the struggle.
I am inclined to think that I was wrong when I put forward the idea of pit settlements, because although the idea which I have always held is that it is desirable that the employers and the employés should come into as direct touch as possible, for I believe that to be one of the solutions of our difficulties in industry, yet at the time time I have always been opposed to any interference by employers in the internal affairs of trade unions. What takes place let it take place naturally and not be imposed upon the industry. I think we shall see a distinct trend in the direction of direct negotiations; because, unlike the old days when direct negotiations were found to be impossible, happily, in the present day, employers of labour are becoming somewhat more civilised than their ancestors were.

Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I am sure the House has listened with interest to the last speaker, who has outlined his ideas of the mining situation, and has spoken on behalf of the coalowners. I would remind the hon. Member that we have had some experience of the ideas of the coalowners as to how the industry could be assisted, and we know how those ideas have materialised. Several of my colleagues have pointed out that the remedies propounded by the coalowners—whatever may have been the relationship between the Government and the coalowners—were accepted in the latter part of the struggle by the Government, and we know how miserably those remedies have failed to produce any improvement in the coal trade.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Does the right hon. Member thereby imply that, if we had not extended the hours of work, the situation in the coal industry would have been better? That is the real point.

Mr. ADAMSON: We have had experience as an industry of the remedies propounded by the coalowners, and eventually adopted by the Government, and we know that they have miserably failed to touch the problem in the mining industry.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: The conditions are worse rather than better.

Mr. ADAMSON: I want to associate myself with what has been said by my colleagues. I am glad that we have had an opportunity of discussing the tragic conditions in the mining industry, and bringing the situation before the country and urging the Government to take some steps in order to deal with the problem. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) said that he did not think the Government could do very much, and he went on to outline how in the process of time the mining industry will gradually improve. What we are more particularly interested in at the moment is the appalling conditions that exist in the industry and to urge the Government to do something to deal with them. It is not good enough for the hon. Member to remind us that 25 years hence or 10 years hence the coal industry will begin to revive and take a new lease of life. I believe that we shall gradually get over our difficulties, but the chief difficulty that we are bringing before the House, the Government and the country to-day is the appalling conditions which exist in the mining industry.
In my own part of the country, the conditions are just as serious as in Durham, Northumberland and South Wales. In 1924 we had over 30,000 persons employed in the mines in my part of the country, whereas to-day we are down to 20,000. That means a reduction of one-third in the number of persons employed in the mining industry. That gives us an idea of the appalling problem which confronts us. One-third of the mining population are idle to-day with their wives and families and are depending upon unemployment benefit. A considerable number of them have been so
long unemployed that they are cut off from the unemployment insurance benefit and are now depending upon the parish. That is the position in the district which I represent, and a similar condition prevails in other parts of the coalfield. I could describe how these conditions have gradually come into being, but that would take me into the region already covered by the hon. Member for Mossley.
The condition of affairs is affecting not only the mining population but traders and professional people living in those parts of the country, who have been brought together to meet the needs of the mining population. In the mining districts of Durham, Northumberland, South Wales and my own district certain of our mining villages are becoming entirely derelict. With a condition of affairs like that, the effect is bound to be serious not only among the mining population but among the people who have been gathered together there and have been associated with the mining population during the whole time that those villages have been in existence. That is placing upon our parish councils and our boards of guardians an intolerable burden which they are unable to bear, and which they will be unable to bear in the future. That is one direction in which the Government could come to the assistance of the mining populations.
One problem which is becoming very serious in some mining districts, is that of rent and rates. There are certain mining districts where this particular problem is not so serious; in Durham and Northumberland I do not think it is as serious as in my part of the country, and in Wales and certain other parts. The rent and rates of the people who are idle among the mining population have been gradually accumulating until they have reached stupendous proportions. The employers of labour, the private owners of property, and the public bodies who own property have exercised up to the present time a considerable amount of forbearance and have not pressed our people bloodthirstily in regard to payment of rent and rates. But the problem is becoming so serious that not only does it mean that the unemployed man is unable to meet it, but gradually the employers of labour and the private owners of property and the local bodies, such as the county councils and the dis-
trict councils, will be unable to meet it, unless the Government can come to their assistance.
Having regard to the importance of the mining industry, we urge the importance of nursing and tiding this vital industry over its difficulties and enabling the people who have followed this occupation all their lives to overcome their difficulties. It is important for the nation as a whole, and it is the duty of the Government to do whatever they can to assist the industry and the mining population. I hope that the Secretary for Mines and the Secretary of State for Scotland who is largely involved in this—

Mr. STEPHEN: He is hopeless.

Mr. ADAMSON: I am relying upon the Scriptural text that the greatest sinner may return. I am not without hope, seeing that the Secretary of State for Scotland is as much involved in this question as the Secretary for Mines, that he will assist us. I make an appeal to the Secretary for Mines, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, and through them to the Government, that they should face the situation and face it at once, and do whatever can be done in order to assist the mining population over their difficulties.

Mr. HARTSHORN: This question of the coal situation has been discussed in this House during the last 10 years more often than any other subject. In every one of these Debates, I have been an attentive listener or a participant in the discussions. I have come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when discussion should come to an end. Talk will not do any good in regard to the problem with which we are confronted. The time has come for action. We want to see the Government take this job in hand and deal with it in a proper and businesslike fashion. I listened to the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) as he developed the argument which has been put forward in every Debate for the last 10 years, that by cutting prices you are going to expand your markets, revive prosperity and solve the coal problem. As an abstract proposition that seems to be arguable, but when we look at the facts in the mining industry I marvel at the temerity of an hon. Member who can get up and
still put that argument before the House of Commons as a reason why things should be left alone and they will right themselves by and by. During the last eight years, since 1920, that has been the one stock argument of the coalowners and the Government; cut prices and it will expand markets.
Let me refer to what has been done in South Wales in that direction. In 1920 the miners in Wales were paid in wages £65,000,000. Last year, they were paid £21,000,000. Since 1920 the wages bill has dropped by £44,000,000; that is the contribution of the miners to an attempt to solve this coal problem. Every penny of that £44,000,000 has been put into a price reduction policy. In 1920, in addition to paying the miners of South Wales £65,000,000, there was a surplus in the industry of £23,750,000, and every penny of that £23,750,000, like the £44,000,000 from wages, has been put into the same policy. It has all gone. It has all been used for price cutting. During the same period there has been a reduction in costs other than wages of £12,000,000, and that £12,000,000 has gone the same way. It has all gone in price cutting. In addition to that the coalowners last year called in £2,250,000 by way of deficit or overdraft or loan, and the total therefore that has been put into one year's output in the Welsh coalfield amounts to £82,000,000, as compared with eight years ago. That is £82,000,000 on one year's output. That is what undercutting has been doing in the Welsh coalfield. And what has been the result on the expansion of mines? In 1920 we had an output of rather less than 47,000,000 tons; last year the output was rather more than 47,000,000 tons. It was practically the same; and we have put £82,000,000 into this policy of expanding our markets. It is not £82,000,000 spread over eight years, but spent in one year.
How much more do the Government think this policy must be tested before they abandon it and except a commonsense policy, the only policy which can deal effectively with the coal situation? When the Labour party was in office in 1924 there were 1,200,000 persons employed in the mining industry as a whole. In 1926 there were 1,100,000; in 1927 there were over 1,000,000, and in 1928 something more than 900,000. If this policy is pursued we shall by next year have 800,000
persons employed in the industry. The Government's record of five years' treatment of the coal question will result in the number of men employed going down from 1,200,000 to 800,000, a decrease of 400,000. It means that one-third of the industry will have collapsed. I am not suggesting that the whole of the fault attaches to the Government, but I say without the least partisan feeling in the matter that when you find £82,000,000 being put into one year's work and failing to expand the markets by that process, that to-day it should appear to the Government that in the general stoppage they were guilty of an unpardonable and inexcusable act of folly in putting all this increased output resulting from the longer working day on to the market, when they knew for years past that there had been a cut-throat policy in a scramble for trade which had already brought the industry to the verge of bankruptcy.
Are the Government now prepared to go back on that blunder? The deliberate action of the Government in changing the hours from seven to eight is responsible, and nothing else, for the fact that 150,000 miners in this country are to be numbered among the unemployed, and a reversal to a seven-hour day would mean that an additional 150,000 possible workers would be employed in the mining industry. I am not saying that it is going to mean 150,000 more than we have got, because we have not finished going out vet. We have still a lot to learn with regard to the eight-hour day and the determination of the Government and the coalowners to continue their policy until they have expended their markets. They have failed to expand them. They have gone as far as they can go; and the result is that the coalowners, who would have nothing to do with assisting the miners to get the industry dealt with on a national basis, are now approaching us to join with them in getting the Government to do something.
What do the Government propose to do? It has been suggested that the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are to be regarded as something which will help to solve the problem. It is estimated that the complete effect of a reduction in the rates and a reduction in the railway freights will mean a reduction in the costs from 8d. to 6d. per ton.
I think the figure 6½d. has been suggested, but I am not in a position to give what can be regarded as an authoritative statement. I am told by an hon. Member behind me that the Board of Trade has calculated the amount at 6½d. per ton, and I suppose they have made a careful calculation. That is what we have to look forward to. It is not long since we had the eight hours day. That was estimated to reduce costs by 2s. 6d. or 3s. per ton. That has gone. It is not long since there was a subsidy of £23,000,000, and it was estimated that it would mean a reduction of 4s. 6d. to 5s. per ton. It has solved nothing, and it is certain if the relief of rates is handed over to the coalowners, to be operated on the policy that has been pursued hitherto, and which, according to the hon. Member for Mossley, appears to be still the policy of the coalowners for the future, that it will only be like a drop in the ocean. It will go through the industry like water through a sieve. It will go like all the rest has gone.
Even this relief, temporary though it may be, is not to come until October of next year. We shall not be able to keep our collieries going until October of next year. I left the country about the middle of January, and the last figure I saw of the number of persons employed in the mining industry in South Wales was 177,000. I came back in 12 weeks' time and the first figure I saw was that the number employed was 165,000. In 12 weeks the number of persons employed had gone down from 177,000 to 165,000, a reduction of 12,000 in 12 weeks. That is at the rate of 1,000 per week. You have to go back 20 or 23 years in order to find a time when there were so few men employed in South Wales as at the present time, and what is true of South Wales is true of all the exporting districts, and in large measure of the Midlands coal producing coalfields as well. In South Wales the position week by week is getting worse. I shall be going home to-night, and to-morrow morning when I look out of my bedroom window I shall see a valley which is practically derelict. I shall see the homes in which live thousands of people; I shall see the Caeran Colliery, which for 20 years has employed more than 2,000 Men. This was reduced to 1,500; and a fortnight ago these 1,500 were put on the
road. The horses have been raised to the surface and the whole of the village is derelict. The whole of the social organisation, the whole of the religious organisation, everything that is near and dear to the people in this valley depends on continuity of employment in that colliery, and the collieries round about.
I should like the Cabinet, who can do something, who have the responsibility and authority to tackle the problem. It is no use preaching to the Secretary for Mines. With the best will in the world he can do nothing. He has not the authority or the power, and nothing can be done to deal with this problem until the Government make up their mind to take the job in hand as a Government. The position is so desperate that it makes me despondent. I hate to go home and face the conditions which exist there. I see the look of gloom and despair and despondency on the faces of the people. I do not wonder that there are extremists about, because it raises the indignation even of moderate men. What we say clearly and definitely is that the miners are entitled to ask, not as a charity but as a right, a fair and square deal from the British people. They are entitled to demand that. We say that it can never be conceded to them until the Government realise that to solve the problem, they must treat this industry as one unit and pool the resources. When they have done that they have to ascertain what are the limits within which the industry can be worked profitably and can give the workers a decent livelihood. Then they have to deal with the other side of the problem. What are they going to do with those for whom work cannot be found? It is no use thinking that this problem is going to solve itself. As I have said for years past, the further this thing goes, the more am I convinced that there is no other solution than, first of all, to pool the resources of the industry, and then to mobilise the resources of the nation in order to put the industry on its feet. Until that is done the industry will go from its present bad condition to a worse and worse condition all along the line. All the evidence that can be adduced goes to prove that that is a correct statement. There is no hope for the industry unless it is unified and made one business, and
the whole of the sales and marketing and merchanting put into proper hands, and a business provided that will enable the industry to be carried on as a going concern.
After giving very careful consideration to the subject, I say that the first thing that ought to be done is for the Government to retrace their steps and to wipe out the great blunder that they made in 1926 when they increased the working hours. That will go a long way to relieve the situation. There is not an atom of evidence to suggest that we should have one ton of coal less in the market. We have nothing to show that there is any expansion of output with the longer hours, but if the course I have suggested were adopted we should have probably 130,000 more men in the industry than we have to-day. Then the Government want to change their policy. They have to face the facts and get rid of the silly notion that by cutting prices and reducing wages and increasing hours they can expand the market. There is no case to be made out for that policy. When they abandon that policy they have to face the alternative, and that is to reconstruct and reorganise this industry and make it fit in with the changed conditions that have grown up. It is no use looking at the situation from the standpoint of pre-War days. We have a different situation today and we must reconstruct this industry in the light of the new conditions that exist.
I do not expect that as a result of this Debate the Secretary for Mines will get up and say anything to indicate that the Government at long last have decided to change their attitude and adopt a policy that will affect this industry. I know that he has no power to do anything off his own bat, but I hope that the statistics, the economic facts and the great human considerations that have been referred to, will at least induce the Government to sit down and reconsider the position, to see whether they have not made mistakes, whether they are not going on the wrong lines, whether there is not another avenue that should be pursued, and whether it is not possible to prevent the overwhelming calamity that is looming ahead. The position as it is to-day is not the worst, and everyone knows that that is so. There is an overwhelming calamity looming over the
coalfields of this country, and if this Debate has the effect of inducing the Government to reconsider the whole situation in the light of present-day facts, our discussion will not have been in vain. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, I presume, is present to represent the Cabinet, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for Mines will seriously consider whether this matter ought not to be taken in hand by the Government again with a view to an entire change of policy and the treatment of this industry on an entirely different footing.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I would like to add a word of appreciation to those expressed by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) of the tone of this Debate. Certainly it has been unusually sympathetic and understanding in comparison with many of the very heated Debates on the mining industry to which I have listened in times past. The right hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) has perfectly fairly been dealing with the question of unemployment, for which he blames the Government. Before dealing with the general situation I would like to say a few words in reply to his remarks on the numbers that are unemployed and his views as to why they are unemployed. I am not going over the full details of the somewhat long Debate that we had only a few weeks ago on the Eight Hours Act, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was pointed out then, and I think it is perfectly obvious to all Members of the House, that had it not been for the increase of working hours and the reduction of 2s. 6d. a ton in working costs thereby ensured, there is no doubt whatever that many more mines would have been closed and many more men would have been thrown out of work. It is generally accepted that the extension of hours did result in a reduction of 2s. 6d. a ton in working expenses. That certainly placed the industry 2s. 6d. a ton better off in competition. I am not speaking of competition between different areas or different collieries in this country, but of competition between this country and
foreign countries in our export trade. The industry here was certainly placed 2s. 6d. a ton better off because of the Eight Hours Act.
In what I have now to say I do not want to use my time in dealing with small details, but would rather deal with general principles. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the Eight Hours Act were abolished there would probably be employment for another 150,000 men. I would draw his attention to the programme of his own party on the mining situation. I quoted it once before, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was then present, or probably he would not have quoted these figures to-day His own party's programme clearly states that even under the Labour scheme there would be no prospect of the industry keeping 1,100,000 miners permanently employed, and it goes on to say:
The view is generally held that there is a surplus of 200,000 to 250,000 workers in the mining industry.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Does that not harmonise with what I said? I said that I estimated that the result of the eight hours day was that 150,000 men were thrown out of employment. This document mentions 250,000, and that with the 150,000 makes 400,000. Those are the figures that I gave. In that programme you have a statement that we realise that there were more men in the industry than could be absorbed. That is the problem, and I say that you have first of all to reconstruct the industry, and then to deal with the other problem.

Commodore KING: I do not agree with the right hen. Gentleman in the figures he has quoted. If the seven-hours' day were reinstated and employment were to be given to these 150,000 more men, that result would disagree with the figures which have been carefully thought out by the right hon. Gentleman's own party. I do not want to make a debating point of it at all. I merely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's figures, and I bring the matter forward because I want to have it realised that it is accented by the Socialist party, and by the Liberal party in their publication, as it is by my Department, that from 200,000 to 250,000 surplus people are in the mining industry
and have to be disposed of somehow. With regard to the general state of depression in the mining industry, I am sure that all Members of this House fully realise and sympathise with the amount of unemployment that exists. Distress is very great in many areas. I would ask hon. Members, particularly those on the Labour Benches, to stand back from the situation for a moment. I have always considered that they rather lose perspective by taking a close-up view of the individual problems in their different districts, and that by standing back and getting a more distant view they would get a more comprehensive idea of the whole situation.

Mr. WALLHEAD: We are living in the wood.

2.0 p.m.

Commodore KING: Hon. Members should stand back from the wood and get a view of the whole forest instead of having their minds fully occupied by the nearest trees. I get too much of the close-up view. During the past few months my Department has been going into the question of the actual capacity —not the potential capacity—of the mines of the country during the past 12 months. In order to do so, the Department took out the largest weekly output for every pit in the country for last year. It is obvious that if the largest production in any week were carried right through the year, that would give the actual capacity of any individual pit. At any rate, it would give a fair estimate of what the pit could actually produce during the year. Working out the figures for the whole of the pits in the country on that basis we get an actual capacity for this country of 330,000,000 tons of coal a year. Do not let hon. Members, however, think that that is the potential capacity. Many of these mines would, of course, if the demand were present, be able to double or treble that capacity. I am simply talking about actual capacity based on the figures of actual production last year. Hon. Members who are interested in the coal industry probably realise that at the present time the greatest amount of which we can dispose in a year is between 250,000,000 tons and 260,000,000 tons. The difference, therefore, between the actual capacity of last year and the amount of which we can dispose in the
year, represents practically a quarter of our actual capacity, and that is a serious problem. It means that practically a quarter of our actual capacity is not at present disposable.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Then why did you increase the working day?

Commodore KING: I am trying to put a picture before the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to be turned off into a discussion as to the different ways in which we might account for that capacity. As I have said, the actual capacity has really nothing to do with the working day. The right hon. Gentleman must realise perfectly well that, if the demand existed, the actual capacity of last year could be increased almost indefinitely. The problem of our actual capacity, as against our disposable capacity, is the problem which we all have to face—Members on the other side of the House, as well as Members on this side. The figures, as I have pointed out, show that a quarter of our actual capacity is not required, and it would be wasteful to produce it since we cannot dispose of it. It is also a guide to the amount of superfluous labour that we have in the mining industry, when we find that one-quarter of our actual capacity is not disposable. Therefore, the problem which we have to meet is one of over-production. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore, when he was complaining of certain schemes, said the principle that you should only produce what you could sell was a wrong principle. I think that was practically what he said. He suggested that you should always endeavour to produce more than you could sell so as to increase your market. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, will agree that in the coal mining industry the pits do not have large stocks on hand to be drawn upon, but work to orders placed in advance. It is, without doubt, the case that the output is based on the number of orders in hand, and that, of course, can immediately be increased should the orders increase.
I do not know that I need go too deeply into the question of markets. I think the question of foreign markets was dealt with fairly thoroughly in the discussion on the Eight Hours Act. But when so much responsibility and
blame is placed on the Government with regard to the present state of affairs, I do not think it is unfair to remind hon. Members that a large part of our difficulties is the result of the seven months' stoppage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all!"] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to express my view, which I think is almost universally admitted. Anyone who knows the facts must realise what was lost during that seven months' stoppage, for which I am not blaming hon. Members opposite or the Miners' Federation any more than I blame the Mining Association.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: What about the Government, who took their side?

Mr. STEPHEN: It is only the Government that he does blame.

Commodore KING: I will not waste the time of the House on such a point. It is obvious that whoever was to blame, and certainly the Government were not to blame—

Mr. BARKER: Tell us what the Government are going to do to meet the situation?

Commodore KING: If the hon. Member will give me the opportunity of stating my case and refrain from making senseless interruptions, I will try to proceed.

Mr. BARKER: It was quite a pertinent interruption.

Commodore KING: I think the hon. Member's interruptions were impertinent. What I want to point out to the House is the result of that seven months stoppage. One market alone which we lost owing to that stoppage was the Scandinavian market, which is a very important one to the Humber trade. That was lost largely because during that stoppage the Polish coafields were able to develop their capacity and to jump in when our supplies failed.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Did we not lose the Scandinavian market largely because of the embargo which was put on long before the stoppage?

Commodore KING: No, Sir. I cannot agree with that view. I think the figures will show the great drop in our market in Scandinavia after the resumption. I
think the hon. Member, if he goes into the figures, will find that the interpretation which I have just made is correct. There is no doubt that the Polish mines developed their capacity during that stoppage.

Mr. STEPHEN: Give us the figures on which that statement is based.

Commodore KING: I am well aware of the method of drawing an hon. Member off his argument, and I am proof against it. I am trying to develop my argument and, if the hon. Member likes to put me any question regarding the statistics at a future time, I shall be pleased to give him what information I can. I said at the outset that I was trying to deal here with general principles.

Mr. BARKER: Give us the Government's remedy.

Commodore KING: If the hon. Gentleman does not like listening to what I am saying he has his remedy, but he must allow me to speak. I have listened with perfect courtesy to the speeches which have already been delivered, and I have paid a tribute to the moderation of those speeches. I rose with every intention of falling into line with the previous speakers in that respect. If I am in any way provocative, I apologise to hon. Members opposite, but I assure them that I have no desire to do anything except give a general view of the position of the coal industry at the present time. I have mentioned the question of markets because markets affect our prices. If there is no demand for coal, obviously prices in the ordinary way are reduced, and it is the large contraction of our markets which has swallowed up all these reductions—the half-crown under the Eight Hours Act and the other reductions to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore has referred. With regard to the Humber ports, they are up against this Polish competition which, as hon. Members know, was increased only the other day by the granting of permission to the Polish coal trade to increase their price in their inland market by something approximating to two shillings a ton. This increase of their prices to their own consumers is to be made so that the benefit may be given to their export trade to Scandinavia.

Mr. CONNOLLY: We are doing the same.

Commodore KING: I am only pointing out the fact. Surely the hon. Member realises that, if we are faced with such stern facts as this, and with the grant of such great assistance—I will not call it a subsidy—to our opponents, our coal trade, on which he and other representatives opposite are dependent, cannot sit down calmly, fold their hands and say, "What are we to do?" If there is this two shillings advantage against the British coal trade and a further-cut in prices, surely he will agree that it would not be British and certainly would not be common sense or business at the present time, to sit down and say, "We cannot help it." We have to do our best to meet that competition.

Mr. STEPHEN: By reducing the miners' wages.

Commodore KING: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to develop this point. I am taking rather longer than I had intended. The complaint has been made by hon. Members that all that has been given to the industry has been wasted in cut-throat competition and useless price cutting. I am trying to give some idea as to how price cutting in the export market is taking place. Hon. Members have also complained—justly on many occasions—of price-cutting as between different collieries and different areas. As they have raised those complaints, it is rather difficult to see how and why they should now criticise certain schemes which have been brought into operation in different parts of the country before those schemes have even had a reasonable trial. These schemes are intended to help those particular areas and are formed with the idea of getting better prices and steady employment in those areas. Surely the interests of the miners are just as greatly concerned in this matter as the interests of the owners. The two interests are identical. The owners are trying to get back certain markets and to increase the price of coal, because, although the reductions mentioned have so far been swallowed up, the raising of coal is still done at a loss. It is in the interest of the mineowners to do away with that loss and it is in the interest of the miners to have more regular employment and
higher wages. We all agree that their wages are at a very low point. It is to their advantage that they should have better wages and also more regular employment and it is to the benefit of the owners that they should be able to get a price for the coal which will pay them instead of producing at a loss, as they are doing at the present time.

Mr. POTTS: And reducing the miners' wages. You may not have seen that point.

Commodore KING: I think I have been perfectly fair in my statement.

Mr. POTTS: You have not told the whole.

Commodore KING: I cannot tell the whole of the truth because of the interruptions of hon. Members opposite. I wanted to deal with the reference of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore to a scheme which it is hoped to bring into force in South Wales, and I want to point out the differences between certain schemes which are now in existence. The scheme which is proposed for South Wales is one to regulate price. The South Wales owners desire to set a minimum price. They are seeking to cover their loss by hardening the price, which is to their benefit and, as hon. Members opposite have said, to the benefit of the miners themselves. That is the way in which South Wales, by setting a minimum selling price and by putting a levy of so much a ton on the coal and compensating those who do not sell at the minimum price, are seeking to raise prices.
With regard to the five counties scheme—the Yorkshire scheme, as it was first called, and then the five counties scheme, which is now in fact the seven counties scheme—they are seeking to reduce their over production, to which I have already referred, by setting a quota. I have given the figures in the House on several occasions, but that quota is now about 67½ per cent. on the basic tonnage selected by each colliery for any year during the past 15 years. That is a limitation of production by quota. They, of course, are also seeking to get in competition, in Scandinavian and other foreign markets, by raising a levy on all coal produced and using that levy for giving a subsidy on coal sold for export. By
that means they are trying to get back, as the right hon. Gentleman was saying, the markets which they have lost. [Interruption.] It has been pointed out that so far as Northumberland and Durham are concerned, they may have actually benefited by that scheme, but they are not putting a subsidy on coal to be sold in Northumberland and Durham or in any of the English markets served by Northumberland and Durham. A subsidy is being put on in competition with the foreigner.

Mr. CONNOLLY: They are putting it on to the markets that were previously held by Northumberland and Durham.

Commodore KING: Yes, but they are foreign markets, and it is in those foreign markets where Northumberland and Durham, as well as the Humber, are feeling the competition of Poland and other foreign competitors that the levy is being used for giving a subsidy.

Mr. BARKER: Tell us what the Government are going to do.

Commodore KING: I must be allowed to explain the position as it is now. With regard to the Scottish scheme, they are working on a different principle. They are limiting output by compensating a certain number of pits for closing. They ask some pits to close so that the remaining pits which are working should work as far as possible at full capacity and, therefore, be able to produce more cheaply. They are compensating those pits for closing by raising a levy of 6d. per ton on all coal raised and a further levy on coal supplied to public utility companies, which up to the present time have been buying coal much too cheaply. Those are schemes that hon. Members opposite are criticising. In the past, they have always been criticising the owners for doing nothing, that they have been entering into cut-throat competition and wasting all the savings that the men have made. Yet when now, for the first time in their history, the coalowners have come together and have worked out these schemes, hon. Members opposite are blaming them for the operation of these schemes which are started for their own benefit.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: These schemes work one against the other.

Commodore KING: Hon. Members must surely realise the step in advance that is shown by these independent schemes which I have already enumerated, the three different schemes. Even 12 months ago very few people in this House would have believed that the coal-owners would have come together to the extent of beginning to operate such schemes. It is a very important and a very definite step in the right direction, and when they have taken that step, surely they deserve a certain amount of sympathy and co-operation from hon. Members opposite who have been advocating this. I asked hon. Members when I started to stand back from the trees so that they could see the wood. An hon. Member here and an hon. Member there are standing underneath a great big tree and cannot see any other trees at all. [Interruption.] I quite agree that many hon. Members opposite have been connected with the mining industry all their lives, and they realise that I have only been appointed to the Department of Mines for some three months, but during that time I have done my best to get as full a knowledge as possible of the mining industry, and—

Mr. BARKER: Tell us what the Government are going to do.

Commodore KING: If the hon. Member will allow me, I should like to say a few words with regard to what the Government are going to do.

Mr. BATEY: That is news !

Commodore KING: It will not be news, but I will cut out some of the other things that I was going to tell hon. Members, because of the limited time. I would like to refer to what the Government are going to do for the mining industry by way of the reduction of local rates and with railway freights.

Mr. BATEY: When we are dead!

Commodore KING: I am sure the hon. Member is far too young yet to be thinking of dying. That is, to my mind, a real help, which hon. Members opposite have somewhat grudgingly admitted. It is not merely the actual benefit to the coal industry by the reduction of 6d. to 8d. per ton in the cost of production through the remission of rates and railway freights, but what is going to do more good than anything else probably is the
reflected help to other industries. With regard to the iron and steel industry, hon. Members opposite were quoting figures given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the amount of relief on railway freights and local rates. He also quoted in that Debate the figures with regard to finished steel. The accumulated relief on the various heavy materials, such as coal, coke, ore, and so on, which go to make up a ton of finished steel, will amount to something like 4s. a ton of steel.

Mr. LAWSON: The Christmas after next.

Commodore KING: Hon. Members cannot in one breath say it is going to do no good at all and in the next breath complain that it is not coming in tomorrow. They cannot have it both ways. It is quite impossible, as everybody realises, for a great scheme like this to be brought in at a fortnight's or a month's notice.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Will the hon. and gallant Member explain how it will be possible for £18,000,000—I understand that that is the figure in connection with the Government's rating proposals— given indiscriminately to all industries, to help the mining industry, when £23,000,000, given indiscriminately to that one industry for nine months, did not solve the difficulty?

Commodore KING: I am afraid that that question had better be dealt with on the Bill introducing that scheme. But it will be one extremely useful method of assisting not only the coal industry but the other heavy industries of this country, and through those industries again there will be a repercussive effect on the coal industry. Hon. Members realise that in every ton of finished steel there is required something like four tons of coal, and, therefore, this assistance to the steel industry is going to have a very useful and helpful reflection on the coal industry. In those ways I think the Government are rendering very considerable assistance, and—

Mr. BARKER: Is that all that the Government are going to do?

Commodore KING: I am afraid I cannot get inside the hon. Member's head.

Mr. BARKER: You have not tried yet.

Commodore KING: I only regret that I cannot get anything inside it, and I am afraid that he does not follow what I am saying. [Interruption.] Really, I do not think, from what I can gather, that hon. Members opposite are anxious to hear what I have to say. I have already told hon. Members that I consider that the Government's proposals with regard to the remission of local rates and the railway freights will be of very considerable assistance, not only to the coal industry but to other industries. The greatest assistance that this House can give, and that hon. Members opposite can give to their own industry, however, is to act in a spirit of co-operation and good will toward these schemes which are under trial at the present time. These schemes are only under trial. One hon. Member opposite said that I had been backing these schemes from the start, but the House will realise that they have only been in operation at the most for two months, and it is not fair to judge any scheme, any new venture of that kind, on such a short experience. I think they represent an effort on the part of the industry itself to help itself, and I would urge hon. Members opposite at least to give them a fair trial and co-operation before they—

Mr. PALING: With regard to the Yorkshire scheme, when they were first considering it, the Chairman said that if we were going to have a war and had to fight, we should find it disastrous, not only to this country, but to every other country, and that if they could avoid that fight by reaching an international arrangement, it would be much better for Europeans and for the people of this country too. Now, is anybody taking any initiative in this business of trying to arrive at an international agreement, and, if not, is not that one direction in which the Ministry of Mines could give distinctive help to the mining industry?

Commodore KING: Of course, there are always people in the different countries such as Germany, Poland, etc., who are working in that direction, and an hon. Friend of mine on this side a short time ago was advocating closer relations with Germany on this very point. The question is always open and under review, but I, at any rate, as far as my Department is concerned, am taking and can take part in no negotiations of that kind at the present time.

STATE OF TRADE.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: We have had an interesting discussion on one of the most interesting and important aspects of our national life, but I want to call the attention of the House to the condition of trade in general, and I do so because I think there has been too much rather facile optimism in the speeches of Ministers recently. This is such as to lead us to believe that the real situation has not been faced. No one expects the Minister to run about the country uttering jeremiads. It is very fitting that they should express confidence, whenever they can upon proper grounds, but we want to know whether, in their opinion now, the confidence expressed earlier in the year is still maintained. The President of the Board of Trade, whose absence to-day and the cause of it we very much regret, stated, in the Debate on the Address, that the figures for 1927 had made a considerable advance on any previous year, and then at the end of his speech, on 1st March, he said:
We may confidently expect a course of steady progress and advance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1928; col. 678, Vol. 214.]
I should like to know whether his Department still shares that confidence, and whether the Government in general still has that confidence, and, if so, upon what grounds. There are many who do not know what grounds. I have no doubt that the Department is in the closest touch with the Federation of British Industries, and they have been saying recently that we are faced with a period of unsettlement of unknown duration. Another institution, the London and Cambridge Economic Service examined this question from an impartial point of view, and it apparently shared the optimism of the Government at the beginning of the year, but now states that the prospective improvement in general industry and especially a decrease in unemployment which seemed likely in February, is not materialising. These are very weighty opinions by those in close touch with these matters. When we come to the figures themselves, the support is rather for the pessimistic point of view. Unemployment figures are, after all, the greatest test of trade, because the life of the country is truly measured by the
quality and security of the livelihood which it gives to the great mass of the people. When we find that this year there are 1,118,000 unemployed, an increase of over 111,000 upon last year, that is a fact which must give very furiously to think, even to the most complacent Minister, because these figures are not only very much worse than last year, but worse than any year back to 1924, with the single exception of 1925. I am taking the figures for May. In May, 1925, when the gold standard had just been restored, there was a special reason for a temporary increase in unemployment, but even that is not the end of it, because now the people over 65 are excluded from the tables, and there are some 35,000 of them.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): They are included.

Mr. GRIFFITH: I am instructed that the unemployed over 65 are not now included.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Any person who is out of employment registers at the Employment Exchanges.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that men over 65 in receipt of a pension have no reason to register, because they do not get unemployment benefit?

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: In answer to questions in this House, we have been told that there are no figures to show this class, but we know from experience that people who do not draw unemployment benefit have no reason to go to the Employment Exchanges.

Mr. GRIFFITH: I was merely stating, what is obvious, that the removal for good cause of the people over 65 must make a difference to the unemployment figures. It is inevitable that the figures should be lightened in this way, and, therefore, the comparison with recent years is not so good as it would otherwise be. The main point, and the significant point in considering our present prospects in industry, is that there has been this 111,000 increase in unemployment since last year, even ignoring the question of the people over 65 years. If it be said that to take the figures merely for a month in each year is misleading, let us take the ordinary seasonal decrease which occurs every year. If our trade is
really prospering, one would expect that decrease to be taking place this year in the normal way, as it has in other years. Instead of that we find there has been a decrease from January to May of only 217,900, this year, as against a decrease of 488,000 in the same period last year. That is not a healthy sign. If you have a patient who has normal periods at certain times of the day, and they are not being maintained, the deduction is that the patient is getting worse.
Are we keeping pace in this matter with the ordinary increase of the population? Between June 1927 and April 1928, only 1,200 additional persons had been taken into employment, and the additional persons entering into insurance numbered 83,000. When we get figures like that, it is easily apprehended what a difficult task there must be in front of any body like the Industrial Transference Board which is supposed to be finding work for those ordinarily employed in one industry in another industry. These figures are sufficient to show that the trade of the country is not in a prosperous condition. When we consider the question on the side of Poor Law relief, the variation is not so great from 1924 to 1928, but the appalling thing is the consistent number of persons in receipt of relief—1,205,000 in 1925, nearly 1,500,000 in 1926 and 1927, and over 1,300,000 at the beginning of this year. That is a terribly high average of those who, through no fault of their own, are compelled to become a burden on their fellows in this way. In 1927 it is actually worse by 177,000 than in 1925, when the task of the Government began.

Mr. WILLIAMS: What dates are those?

Mr. GRIFFITH: The figures are for 1st January each year. The actual small improvement—the drop from 1,414,000 to 1,382,000 between 1927 and 1928—will be accounted for by a somewhat stiffer administration of the Poor Law, which, although in some cases it may be justified, in other cases has caused the most cruel hardship. Therefore, on all the tests of employment, the first and most vital test, shows that the trade of the country is very far from prosperous. If industry gets a move on, that move will be reproduced in the railway receipts. When people and goods are moving about
the country it is a sign that there is real progress in industry. Instead of that, we find that, even comparing it with last year, the decline in railway receipts between the first 19 weeks of this year and the first 19 weeks of last year amounts to over £3,000,000. That is not in any one class of railway traffic; it is spread all over the traffic of the railways—passengers, merchandise, coal, and coke. There is a special decrease in receipts in things like grain, flour, cement, fruit, pottery, and two items to which I call particular attention, road stone and bricks. These are things which ought not, in the normal course, to be suffering from a lack of demand, for no one can pretend that the task of road making or house building is finished. Both these things are departments of our life in which private enterprise is not being left entirely alone; the Government have assumed a certain responsibility, and adopted a certain policy, yet, in spite of that, we have a falling off in the carriage of these important materials.
Turning to special trades, there is no need for me to say anything further about coal, because that has been fully dealt with, but the figures show that, even as compared with last year, which was not a good period, there is a decrease on the first 19 weeks of 1928, as compared with the same period in 1927, of 5,000,000 tons in production. For the first four months of 1928, as compared with 1927, there were 1,500,000 tons less in exports, and nearly 2,000,000 tons less as against 1925 and 1926. In the iron and steel industry, in which I should naturally take the greatest interest, but with which I do not want to deal from a Middlesbrough point of view, but from the point of view of the general trade of the nation, one finds a condition which is worse than last year—2,827,000 tons as against 3,358,000 tons. I hope that the answer given to me by the Minister will not concentrate on the very facile answer of putting the whole difficulty upon foreign importations, and of saying that, if we could by safeguards or other ways, keep our foreign imports, it would be well for iron and steel. I do not want to argue that question. I only wish to point out that here, at any rate, the imports have gone down too; they have
gone down, as against last year, from 1,881,000 to 1,095,000 tons—a tremendous drop. Come to shipbuilding, if we take the difference between the first quarter of 1927 and the first quarter of 1928 there is a drop from 580,000 tons of commenced building to 342,000 tons, a drop of 248,000. The tonnage launched, on the other hand, has gone up tremendously by 279,000 tons, which shows that, as regards shipbuilding, we have just finished a great deal of work, but the amount of work which we are beginning is very small, as compared with last year. That is not a very comfortable prospect with which to face Whitsuntide holidays.
That appears to be the general condition all over industry. We have heard it openly stated in this House with regard to cotton, that bankruptcy is the only thing that can save that industry. The Prime Minister himself has said in other places that only a heavy cutting of losses will bring about any remedy. That would appear to be a heroic remedy, but it is not indicative of a healthy state of industry. As to agriculture, who is going to say any comfortable words about that most important department of life? In fact, in whatever part of industry you look, I can only find one grain of comfort, which I will give for what it is worth. The total exports appear to have gone up this year to £237,000,000 as against £223,000,000 last year. That is £14,000,000 increase in the total exports, which is undoubtedly an enormously important fact, but prosperity is not measured solely by exports. Imports, as showing the purchasing power of the country, are an equally important consideration, but, still, the increase of exports, for what it is worth, is to the credit of our present condition. We have to remember that, in a study of the statistics of exports, and other trade statistics, over a series of years, exports tend to lag behind the other statistics. The effect is produced some two or three months later, and there is reason to feel that this increase of exports, which we have had in the last few months, is not going to be maintained as the rest of the year goes on,
because, if the other indications are unhealthy, it is not likely that the increase in exports will be maintained.
I have not been putting what I have said in any sense as an indictment of the Government—not to-day, at any rate. I am putting to them the view that the industry of the country is undoubtedly in a sick and ailing condition, and we want to know what the prospects of recovery are. We are not at this moment bringing an action against the nation's doctor for negligence. That may be done at another time. We are consulting the nation's doctor, asking what the prospects of recovery are, whether these conditions can be traced to purely temporary causes which will be removed in the course of time, and whether there are any factors which my analysis has missed —there may be many which are known to the Ministry—which lead to hope. If that can be shown to be the case, nobody will be more pleased than those on this side of the House, both below and above the Gangway; but if it be not so, if there are no such temporary causes accountable, if there are no such factors of improvement, then now, after these years of governing the country, when they are coming within measurable distance of rendering an account of their stewardship to the nation, I can only think the Government must be approaching that prospect with a mind full of doubt and apprehension—I am not speaking of electoral questions but of the future of the country which they are endeavouring to serve.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I am quite sure hon. Members have listened almost with tears in their eyes to the address of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith). It is always well to indulge in self-criticism, but one wonders why we should have inflicted upon us time after time these dreadful accounts of things that are happening and are going to happen to the industry of this country. For my own part, I see many dark spots, I know personally that there are great and grave troubles, but I believe the signs we see both in the textile and in the heavy trades do indicate a real improvement, though that improvement may be slow. We have devoted two or three hours this morning to considering the coal trade, and the remarks I want to make this afternoon
have a definite bearing on that trade, because we realise that, do what we may in certain directions, the personnel of the coal trade is going to be reduced, and we have got, as and when we can, to find openings for those who are displaced. Within measurable distance of the great Midlands coalfield there is an industry, the hosiery industry, which has expanded perhaps more than any other during the course of the last few years. That industry employs a large number of juveniles and a large number of women, and without any great transplacement of labour it could render a real service to those who are unable to find employment in the coal mines of Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire. It is therefore with real alarm that we who are interested in that industry and in those who live by it have seen that the Committee were unable to recommend that safeguarding should be applied to the cotton section. I am not here as a protagonist of Tariff Reform. I am not here as what might be called a hard-boiled Protectionist. In these matters I frankly confess that I am opportunist. After all, Mr. Gladstone came into this House as a staunch Protectionist, but he led hon. Members on the other side in Free Trade. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain came into the House on the other side wedded to Free Trade, and led hon. Members on this side towards Protection. With instances of that sort—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is Mond.

Captain WATERHOUSE: The time is short, and so I do not want to multiply instances, but they could be multiplied by ones rather closer to the hon. Member than the case of which he speaks.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: All the brains of the Liberal Party.

Captain WATERHOUSE: They shift from time to time. I am not going to argue the merits and demerits of Protection or even of safeguarding. I want to deal with the situation as it is and I would remind the House of what the Prime Minister said at the last election:
While a general tariff is no part of our programme we are determined to safeguard the employment and standard of living of our people in any efficient industry in which
they are imperilled by unfair competition by applying the principle of the Safeguarding of Industries Act or by analogous measures.
I am not going to trace the origin of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, or to remind hon. Members opposite that they, with their free trade ideas, are themselves in large measure responsible through their leader for having put the first of those Acts on the Statute Book in 1921; but I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he realises the change which the Government have made in that Act. We have been accused of swinging towards Protection. It seems to me we have definitely swung in the other direction. Under Section 2 of that Act four things had to be proved by any industry applying for these measures of relief; to-day no less than eight separate requirements have to be satisfied. First, my right hon. Friend has to be satisfied, a Committee is set up and it has got to satisfy itself on these eight points, then it has got to satisfy the Minister with its findings, and finally we have the Finance Bill in this House, going through all its laborious stages. It is no wonder that many people speak of this procedure as illogical and unfair, and liken the difficulties of any industry applying for help to those of a man competing in an obstacle race.
From the outset the industry is faced by an unholy alliance of the merchants, the importers and the foreigners. The first two groups are members of an organisation in London which has fought many of these cases. They have behind them experience, valuable experience, and the cases are heard in London, and that is of real advantage to men who are members of an organisation whose headquarters are in London. Then they have the advantage of having agents in every part of the world whom they can instruct to collect evidence. They sift that evidence, they take what they want and discard what they do not want, and they bring over to this country in the form of private letters or affidavits all sorts of collected and assorted matter which is laid before the Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Shame!

Captain WATERHOUSE: The hon. Member says "Shame," and I can assure him that many of those applicants feel
like crying "Shame" when they come before the Committee and are faced by what are termed facts but are statements which they well know have little relation to the facts. My right hon. Friend, whose absence to-day we all deplore, though his place is so very ably taken by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, said a little time ago that he could make no change in the terms of the White Paper during the life of the present Parliament. If that be the case, one must accept it, but I hope that he may be able to reconsider it. If it has to be accepted, let us face it out and see what we can do under the White Paper as it exists to-day. I venture to think there are certain directions in which real improvements can be made whereby greater fairness will be shown to applicants. First, I would refer Lo the constitution of the Committee. Under the White Paper it is laid down that of the five persons appointed by the Board of Trade, no person whose interests may be materially affected by any action which may be taken on the report of the Committee will be eligible for appointment. I wish to say that I respect those ladies and gentlemen who during the last three or four years have come forward and served without remuneration on those committees. They are ladies and gentlemen of very great ability, who have carried out their task with much ability, but I submit that in the main they are not capable of dealing with inquiries of this kind, they have not the type of mind or the training to make them capable of sifting evidence, and if we are to have a really fair inquiry we must have a committee of a semi-judicial character. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] I am glad we have support for that from the other side of the House, and if and when my right hon. Friend comes forward with an Amendment in this respect I hope cheers will come from that side again. I suggest that my right hon. Friend might set up a panel of, say, seven men of judicial capacity and pick his committees from that panel. I do not think it would be impossible to arrange for the remuneration of those gentlemen, and I do think it would enhance the value of the committees and redound to the credit of the Department of my right hon. Friend.
On the question of procedure, the White Paper lays down under Section 4 that the Committee must have the power to determine its own procedure, but that statement does not in any way preclude the Minister from issuing a memorandum of advice on that which he thinks should be followed. I suggest that such a memorandum would be valuable in the extreme. One comes next to the interpretation of various sections of the White Paper. For example, Section 2 states:
Whether goods of a class or description to which the application applies are being imported and retained in abnormal quantities.
What exactly are abnormal quantities? It is a difficult thing to decide. In the recent inquiry on buttons, Mr. Faraday, who was appearing for the appellants, devoted five or 10 minutes to quotations from the speeches of my right hon. Friend in this House when trying to interpret those words. I submit that it is not desirable that speeches made in this House should be quoted in order to elucidate an order which is, in a way, comparable to an Act of Parliament. This is a matter deserving of careful attention from my right hon. Friend.
3.0 p.m.
The question of evidence, is, perhaps, the most important point of all. These committees have no power to call for either persons or papers; they have no power to demand that any witness shall give evidence on oath; they have got to take what they are offered and sift it as well as they can. I want to give one or two examples which, I think, will prove to the House how this question of evidence has been abused in the past. On the worsted inquiry in 1926 we find the Committee saying:
Having regard to the evidence adduced before us we are of opinion that the applicants have failed to establish inferior conditions of employment of labour either as regards remuneration or hours of employment.
That statement seems to me to be absolutely ridiculous, because the hours are longer and the pay is a little more than one-third. I am not going to argue the merits of this case, but it is quite absurd to say that the conditions in the textile industry in Roubaix, in centres in Germany or in Belgium are comparable to those in this country to-day, much less
in 1926, when this inquiry was undertaken. How can you reconcile such a statement with that made in the Committee dealing with the application by the button industry, their Report which was as follows:
Wages are so different in the main competing countries from those which are enforced by a Trade Board in this country as to render the competition unfair, but the application was rejected because abnormal imports were not proved.
Those two statements are absolutely counter to each other, and if the evidence had been properly submitted the Worsted Committee would not have been led to make a mistake of that sort.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Do not these Committees sometimes lean in the other direction?

Captain WATERHOUSE: On these matters we do not want an ex parte statement, but we want the truth. I do not want any industry to be protected if it does not need it, but if the necessity for protection is proved, then I think that particular trade should receive that assistance. We require a much fairer method of dealing with the whole procedure. In the financial supplement of the "Times" on 3rd May, I find the following passage dealing with buttons:
Mr. Newey reveals the absurdity of the position by pointing out that evidence was given that large orders had been accepted by Newey Brothers, Limited below cost with the object of finding employment for the workers and in anticipation of relief under the Safeguarding Act. Unhappily for the firm, their action, admittedly taken in the interests of the workers, automatically reduced imports and thus led to the failure of the application.
There is another parallel and equally striking case in the hosiery report in paragraph 16, which reads:
For example, it was proved to our satisfaction that one important British firm were now able to compete successfully against the very cheap cotton hose imported from America, which was referred to at some length in our first Report.
I am not able to give chapter and verse for this particular argument because the evidence was heard in camera, and it would be most improper for me to go into details. I can however say that an application was made to allow one of the directors of this firm to give evidence, but the opponents of the application objected to this gentleman being called
because they said their statement was a confidential one. That witness was not called, but if he had appeared before the Committee he could have put a very different complexion on the case and shown that such a statement was without any foundation,
Mr. Allard, who so ably conducted the case on behalf of the applicants, was unable to cross-examine, since a statement was put in and no witness called. I propose now to give the House an example of a rather different sort dealing with evidence obtained from a foreign manufacturer, a company called the Durham Hosiery Company of the United States of America. The managing director of this company writes at the top of his statement:
I!!!!Take oath and say as follows:
In the fourth paragraph, after giving other figures, these words appear:
The dyeing charges of the said stockings I estimate to be from 5¾ to 6¾ cents.
I submit that such estimates are of no real value in an inquiry of this sort. We want facts and not estimates. Another company, the Perkins Hosiery Company of the United States of America, who seek to corroborate the Durham company's evidence, writes:
It is with much regret that we cannot give you a statutory declaration.
If those two statements were brought into a Court of Law, they would at once be ruled out, no cognisance would be taken of them, and no records of them be retained. Perhaps the most glaring instance of this sort of practice is a little incident connected with the Customs. I put a question on this point to the Parliamentary Secretary on Monday, and I received this reply:
The extent of the informal consultation was that a Customs official telephoned the Secretary of the Committee to inquire how the Committee was progressing, and was told that generally the Report was likely to be adverse, but that there was a possibility of a duty on cotton hose and underwear. The Customs official made the comment that such a proposal might require some thinking over, and that was the extent of the consultation.
On the strength of that consultation and that alone, the Committee inserted these words in their Report:
We would further point out that in the event of the imposition of a duty on cotton
hose and underwear, serious administrative difficulties would arise in the case of goods made of mixtures of cotton and other materials.

Mr. WILLIAMS: indicated dissent.

Captain WATERHOUSE: My hon. Friend shakes his head, but I must ask him what other evidence was called on this point. Who is to be the judge of what are serious administrative difficulties? Is it to be the Customs official or the gentlemen who constitute this committee? If it is to be the Customs officials, then they should be called to give evidence and should be examined and cross-examined, instead of simply having an informal consultation across the telephone. Under all these circumstances, I submit that there are adequate grounds to justify my right hon. Friend in imposing the duty asked for on cotton goods, for while certain of the committee's conclusions have been shown to be based on insufficient evidence—they themselves recommended a duty on cheap cotton goods—I hope something will be done for this industry which is now in a very parlous condition. We all realise the strides which the hosiery trade has made in artificial silk, and we realise that Leicester and Nottingham are going ahead in this direction, but to say that they have not a right to maintain their present position in the cotton trade is something which is absolutely unheard of in industry. If every new invention is to be allowed to replace an old-established trade, how can we possibly go on from prosperity to prosperity? Inventions ought to produce trades supplementary and not alternative to existing enterprises, and, on the larger issue, I hope I have convinced the Parliamentary Secretary that some change is absolutely necessary in the composition and the procedure of the committees.

Mr. STRAUSS: I happen to be connected with an industry which is supposed to have had the blessings of Protection conferred upon it for the last three years, and I have no hesitation in saying that after three years of that blessing it still remains in a very parlous condition. Therefore it is quite evident that tariffs are not a cure for all our ills.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: What industry is the hon. Member referring to?

Mr. STRAUSS: I am referring to the hop industry. I speak as a hop grower. Many optimistic prophecies have been put forward by various members of the Government in regard to the prospects of trade and industry. Recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer attracted the attention of this House, in fact he almost hypnotised humble back-benchers like myself by his Budget statement. When some of us regained our senses we realised that that wonderful speech only promised us something in 18 months' time, but, as a matter of fact, the Budget showed that we should have to bear additional taxation immediately, notwithstanding the fact that when the present Government took office they promised us that an annual reduction in our national expendiditure of £10,000,000 would certainly take place. I am afraid that as long as the present Government remain in office and they pursue their policy we cannot hope for any reduction in our national expenditure. No matter where we survey the whole field of industry, we encounter many disquieting features, and certainly the tragic spectre of unemployment remains and there is in that respect a very sad state of things.
The worst feature of all this is the deterioration of the people which is produced by unemployment. If we could only reduce our national expenditure and lighten the burden of taxation I am sure that would help our industries more than anything else. We must try to realise what it all means if we are not going to get any help until October, 1929, when we have been promised that the Rating Act will be in operation. Meanwhile we may have a General Election. One question we must ask ourselves is: Can we maintain our present position as a great industrial country for the next 18 months without a helping hand? Some time ago we were informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a Civil Research Committee was going to be set up. Has it been set up, and what is it doing? Is it reporting? Personally, I believe that such a Committee might be of the greatest benefit for investigation and co-ordination, especially if such a Committee can have the assistance and the advice of experts. They would be able to discover the weak spots in our industries. They would certainly be able to report whether an industry is carried
on in an efficient manner. After all, the worst thing for any country is to subsidise inefficient industry. The indications that the industries of this country are not in a satisfactory condition are many, as has already been pointed out.
Speaking from a trader's point of view, what we want, above everything else in this country, is cheap transport. It is the life blood of trade and industry to no small extent. Our railway rates are higher in this country than in any European country. After all, we are an island nation. We depend for our existence on our exports and imports. I should like to know why it costs more to load and unload a vessel in British ports than on the Continent of Europe. Those are matters with which I hope the hon. Member representing the Board of Trade will deal. I admit that the wages in this country are higher than in Continental countries, but, on the other hand, labour in this country is far more efficient. From personal experience, I have no hesitation in saying that the ordinary British workman can do more work in a given number of hours than a Belgian, a Frenchman or even a German. Though we pay higher wages in this country, we get better service, and that counter-balances the higher wages paid. There is another point I should like to put to him. Why should goods be shipped from, let us say, the United States to Antwerp, transhipped there and sent to Ireland at a lower rate than via London or Liverpool? Those are very vital matters which will certainly require the attention and examination of the Board of Trade. After all, what has this Government done for international trade? I admit that they have done one thing. They have established an Empire Marketing Board, but, after all, charity commences at home. Has that Empire Marketing Board done much for the industries of this country? I believe it has done something—and I am glad of it—for the trade of the Dominions, but it is being paid for by British money and not by the money of the Dominions.

Sir H. CROFT: Are not goods paid for by goods?

Mr. STRAUSS: I am talking of British goods. What industries in this country have benefited by the Empire Marketing Board? The only advertisement I have noticed that might benefit
British goods is the one asking the people of this country to drink more milk. This activity does not help British goods to any great extent. The Empire Marketing Board was set up because the Government could not carry out their policy of preferential tariffs for the Dominions, and it was to console or compensate them for the fact that this country would not have preferential tariffs. What has this Government done to help the position in which so many people in this country find themselves? We all know that there is a shortage of houses. Many people in this country live under disgraceful conditions of overcrowding. On the other hand, we were told the other day that the number of houses under construction is 50 per cent. less than at this time last year. Surely, there is no shortage of labour in the building trade. Every muscle ought to be strained to see that all the houses possible are built for the working classes. Yet many workers in the building trade are out of employment. It is ridiculous to think that we have solved the question of housing. We have only touched the fringe of it.
Another suggestion of mine is this: In this great Metropolis there is enormous traffic congestion. One way of dealing with the problem is to build more bridges—many more bridges in fact. We have heard a great deal for years about a Charing Cross bridge, which is going to be built, but so far nothing has been done except to talk and inquire about it. Why has the work not been done? Because of lack of co-ordination. I am sure, if the Government were in earnest to try and help the industries of this country, they could do something. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Trade, whose characteristic energy we all know, to do his utmost and to take every possible step to do something for the industries of this country, not in 18 months' time, not in October, 1929, but at once.

Mr. RYE: I understand the hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. Strauss) stated at the opening of his speech that safeguarding was no benefit to anybody. That is not the view taken by those interested in the hosiery trade, about which I wish to speak this afternoon. They, at all events, ought to be able to know their own business, and they cer-
tainly think that safeguarding would be of assistance to them, because two applications have already been made for the purpose of obtaining safeguarding. It is in connection with the second application and the report made by the Committee in connection with that application that I wish to address a few remarks to the House. In company with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse), I very fully appreciate the services rendered by those who take their place on these Committees. I recognise that they devote an immense amount of time to them, take every possible care, and do their best. At the same time, I suggest that certain of those persons, who were set up to deal with the hosiery question, have not sufficient special knowledge and skill and have not sufficiently judicial minds to deal with the question that came before them. I am going to put to the House certain facts and to ask the House to consider whether that Report was altogether fair to those who came before the Committee. I am not going to suggest they were not treated with the utmost courtesy, because there is no question about that. But I do suggest that some of them had no legal training, and I do so at the risk of meeting the gibe "Lawyers are no good." I do not agree with it. I am one myself. My personal experience is that, whenever you find lawyers sitting on Committees or taking part in municipal or other work, they have done their work well. I am going to suggest, as I did in a question I put to the President of the Board of Trade yesterday, that the personnel of these Committees ought to be changed. I do not think that those who take part in the class of work that comes before them have the adequate knowledge, have the mind, as my hon. and gallant Friend put it, to deal adequately with the questions that arise.
As regards the second application, I would remind the House that those who represented the hosiery industry made their application practically at the invitation of the Committee in their first Report. I want to emphasise that, and I would like to read to the House what I take to have been the invitation that they gave. It is contained in paragraph 41 of the first Report, in which they made the following statement:
If, on the other hand, the importation of cotton hose and half-hose and cotton underwear continues to increase, as is the tendency at present, accompanied by an increase in unemployment, the Committee would suggest that the applicants should be afforded a further opportunity of putting forward fresh evidence on the question of costs of production, and more particularly on the effect of mass production and standardisation on such costs of production, as the information furnished to us was not sufficiently definite to enable us to come to any conclusion in the matter.
I read that as an invitation, and those engaged in the hosiery industry also looked upon it as such, and, accordingly, they came forward with their second application. I am going to tell the House shortly what they succeeded in proving, and I am going to show that by a reference to the second Report of the Committee.
They proved that there had been a very material increase in the imports during the period from 1924 to 1927—I am dealing, of course, with cotton hose and cotton underwear, because these were the primary subjects of the application. The application was in regard to cotton goods and woollen goods. The figures showed that the import of cotton hose was a record one in the year 1927, and the figures regarding that are set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Committee's Report. In 1924, the cotton hose imported into this country was of the value of £695,471. In 1927, the figure had risen to £1,217,983, or very nearly double; and, although there was no increase in the value of the cotton underwear imported, there was an increase in the quantity of these goods brought into this country. To give the figures for the volume of goods imported, I find that, of hose, there were imported, in 1924, 3,270,566 pairs, while the quantity of underwear imported was 2,211,415 dozen, and the Committee themselves reported that there was an abnormal importation of this particular class of goods. Then the Committee dealt with the question of wages, and they reported, as set out in paragraph 22, that they found that in certain competing countries the wages paid were below the rate of wages paid in Great Britain. The House will see, therefore, that, up to that stage, the applicants had made out their case both on the question of imports and on the question of wages. The Committee, in paragraph 14, reaffirmed their previous
finding on the first application, that, in the case of cotton hose and cotton underwear,
goods of the class or description to which the application relates were being imported into or retained for consumption in this country in abnormal quantities.
That was not a statement made on behalf of the applicants, but was the decision of the Committee. Finally, in paragraph 26, the Committee expressed the opinion that, with regard to cheap cotton underwear and, to a lesser degree, to cheap cotton hose, including half-hose, the applicants had made out a case in accordance with the Regulations laid down in the White Paper.
Anyone reading that Report would have thought at that stage that the Committee were going unhesitatingly to recommend the imposition of a duty, but, astonishing though it may seem, they decided that they were not able to do so on the ground that: they could not differentiate and separate the classes of goods that were the subject of the application. The application, as I have already said, was made in respect of cotton hose and cotton underwear and of woollen hose and woollen underwear. Undoubtedly, the applicants did not satisfy the Committee on the subject of woollen goods, but it is quite certain that they satisfied the Committee on the subject of cotton goods. For some reason, however, which I find it very difficult to understand, and which those engaged in the hosiery industry certainly do not understand—and I think one may fairly say that they are very dissatisfied with the results—the Committee came to the conclusion that they could not separate the two classes of goods; they said that that did not come within their terms of reference. I do not know why they should have arrived at that conclusion, for, according to the terms of reference, the Committee was reconstituted
To consider whether having regard to their previous Report, the present position of the hosiery and knitwear industry is or is not such as would justify the imposition of any, and, if so, what, import duty on hosiery and knitwear of cotton or wool.
It was not an application in respect of cotton and wool, but an application in respect of cotton or wool, and one would have thought that, once a case was made out for one or other of them, it was well within the province of the Committee to
decide to recommend the imposition of a duty to give protection to the one in regard to which a case had been made out.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. Gentleman is in order in attacking a Committee set up under the Safeguarding of Industries Act—in attacking their conduct and their findings in this way? Are they not in a judicial position, and protected from such criticisms.

Mr. SPEAKER: Much criticism of these tribunals has come from Members on my left. It seems to depend on which way the decision goes. I have not yet heard that these Committees are judicial bodies. I think that the hon. Member is quite in order.

Mr. RYE: It would be exceedingly difficult for me to make my point as to the necessity for changing the personnel of these Committees unless I were able to refer to the matters which I have mentioned. As I was saying, I do not see why, in view of the terms of reference, the Committee should not have come to a decision on the question of cotton goods, a case in regard to which had been clearly established. I would remind the House that there is a precedent for that, because, on a recent application relating to buttons, pins, hooks and eyes and snap fasteners, the Committee which dealt with that application came to the conclusion that no case had been made out for anything but buttons, but they did recommend the imposition of a duty in respect of buttons. There you have one Committee saying that they could separate various classes of goods, and actually separating them and recommending the imposition of a duty in respect of one of them.
In this present case there was an application relating to two classes of goods, and it would seem to me to be singularly unfortunate and unfair to applicants if, in consequence of their having to bring within their application another class of goods, they should be turned down and refused protection merely because they were unable to show, in regard to a minor part of their application, that there was need of safeguarding. Here there was, on the very finding of the Committee itself, a good case made out. If
they made out their case would it not have been reasonable for the Committee to decide in their favour? I will put an analogous case. Suppose an industry comprising 20 different units made an application, and suppose it was proved beyond a shadow of doubt that in 19 of those cases it was necessary to give protection in consequence of unfair foreign competition, would any Committee be justified in refusing to make an award in favour of the applicants merely because it was shown that the 20th unit was in a prosperous state and able to meet foreign competition? I do not think that is too extreme a case to put and it bears cut my contention.
Of course, it will be said by the Parliamentary Secretary that it was not merely on this ground that the Committee decided against the applicants. They also decided that there was not sufficient evidence of unemployment, and that as a fact unemployment in the industry as a whole was quite low. The figures in 1925 were 8.4, and in 1927 they had gone down to 5.75. That, on the face of it, would seem to be a very good reason hut, as a fact, part of this industry is doing badly—that is the part that applied for assistance—and not only that, but the figures that are given of unemployment in the hosiery trade really do not indicate the state of affairs in that industry, because of the under-employment. It is not only a question of whole employment but there is a great deal of under-employment. I understand that when times are bad, and unfortunately times are very bad indeed when we have this foreign competition, and we have goods brought here and offered at prices with which we cannot compete, it is not the custom of the hosiery people to turn their workers away and re-engage them when times are better, but to keep them on and to parcel out the work amongst them as best they can, so that they are partially employed. They are not sufficiently under-employed to enable them to go on the register and draw the dole, and therefore there is no record of this underemployment.
As evidence of that, I have a statement of production and employment of 30 firms for the three months ending
25th December, 1926. I believe it was given before the Committee. It shows that there were 6,355 machines available, only 3,072 in full use, and 3,283 idle, and the percentage of machines that were idle is 51.6 and the value £250,000. The capacity was 1,063,760 dozen and the actual output was 506,422 dozen, or practically half. That is underwear. Then I have the figures for hose and half-hose. There the machines available were 8,558, in full use, 3,013, idle, 5,545, and the percentage of machines idle was 64.8. That shows that there is a considerable amount of under-employment, which is the equivalent of unemployment, in the industry. If any further evidence is required, I have received a letter from a firm of hosiery manufacturers. I shall be very happy to give it to the Parliamentary Secretary afterwards. Obviously, it would not be fair to read out the names. They refer to six firms. In regard to the first, they say that they have not made half-time for two years, and the second have not made half-time since last August. The third have spent, as they put it, a large amount of time on the dole, the next firm unfortunately have met with financial disaster, the next have the whole of their men practically out of work, and my informants themselves have had no plain work, by which they mean plain half-hose without fancy work, for 12 months. That is the position in the industry, and I suggest that a case was made out. I join in the plea made to the Parliamentary Secretary to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether that Report of the Committee cannot be reconsidered.
My hon. Friend, when he replies, may refer to a point that was raised by the Committee on the subject of unemployment and on the subject of these machines being interchangeable. I am told that is not the case, and that, so far as the manufacture of cotton hose and underwear is concerned, there could not be an interchange for the purpose of manufacturing, we will say, silk or artificial silk garments and hose. Generally, while very fully appreciating the services which have been rendered by the lady and gentlemen who formed the Committee, I think the time has come when the House ought to consider both a change in procedure and in personnel. I do not think it is right that these in-
quiries should be held in what is really quite an informal way. Evidence is not taken on oath. There are informal conversations, extracts from documents are read, the original documents may or may not be produced, and the applicants or the objectors, as the case may be, frequently have not an opportunity of cross-examining witnesses. The procedure is entirely wrong. It should be laid down by the Board of Trade so that at least there is uniformity, so that you do not have one state of affairs before one Committee and another before another. But, above all, I make a plea for a change in the character of the Committees. I hope the House will as soon as possible see its way to make an alteration in the regulations of the White Paper, so as to have some official referee, or the equivalent, put in charge to take these inquiries. It will be said they are dealing with commercial matters and they naturally require the attention of someone versed in commercial pursuits. The answer to that is that in the Law Courts commercial cases are dealt with by a Judge in the ordinary way, and it is only in the Admiralty Court that an expert assesor sits with the Judge to assist him. That could be done in these cases if the Committee were done away with and some individual having legal training was placed in charge. In these circumstances I trust my hon. Friend will see his way to accept the plea which has been put in by my hon. and gallant Friend and supported by myself.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I think the House will agree that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye) has done his duty by those of his constituents who are interested in the hosiery trade. I do not propose to follow him into the details of the arguments he raised, because I have not made myself familiar with the report of that Committee, but I do propose to traverse some of the arguments which have been put by the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse). I think the hon. and gallant Member summed up the weakness of his own case, and the weakness of every case put forward for the protection of industry, in a passage towards the end of his remarks, when, if I am not misinterpreting him—and I am prepared to amend it if I am—he said that although there were, it was true, new industries coming into existence, we must
still hold on to the old industries; that the new industries must not replace but must be supplementary to the old industries. I think that that was the hon. and gallant Member's argument. Let me put it in another way. It is perfectly true that motor omnibuses are faster, more convenient, and cheaper than horse omnibuses, but it is quite wrong that they should replace horse omnibuses; they should only be brought in in order to be supplementary to horse omnibuses. We should keep the horse omnibus, and have the horse omnibus and the motor omnibus travelling side by side. That, I think, is the same argument put in another form.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does not the hon. Member know that for door-to-door traffic the horse is much more practicable?

Mr. CRAWFURD: I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Member, speaking of a district with which he is familiar, has advanced a perfectly good argument, but in those streets of London through which I usually pass, the omnibuses do not travel from door to door. They really go quite considerable distances without stopping, and it is for this reason that the motor omnibus has supplanted the horse omnibus. The argument of the hon. and gallant Member is that for all purposes both should be continued side by side. May I turn from that to one of the chief arguments brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member in support of hill contention, where he was joined—I am not quite sure whether he was joined or whether he was criticised—by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Loughborough. The hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester pleaded for a judicial element on these committees. That, I think, was the contention. The hen. Member for Loughborough, on the other hand, said that his complaint against the Committee which sat on the hosiery application was twofold. First of all, they had no special knowledge of the subjects which would make them competent to sift the evidence, and, secondly, they had not a judicial mind. The hon. Member must make up his mind what he wants. Does he want a committee of experts or does he want a judicial committee, because he has not asked for the same thing as the hon. and gallant Member.

Mr. RYE: I am not concerned with a committee of experts. I want someone with a judicial mind able to weigh evidence and the value of evidence and come to a proper decision.

Mr. CRAWFURD: That clarifies the issue. The hon. Member has dropped his experts.

Mr. RYE: I do not know if I ever put forward the suggestion of technical experts.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I can only say that I took down the words of the hon. Member, and his complaint was that they had not the special knowledge or skill in regard to that particular trade to enable them to sift evidence.

Mr. RYE: Legal knowledge.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Any way, the two hon. Members are joined together in demanding a judicial element on the committee. For my part—and I have not consulted my hon. Friends—I welcome that. The hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester brought forward other questions. He complained that somebody from America had made an estimate instead of giving facts. Sometimes we have to rely upon estimates. I saw the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in the Chamber some time ago, and we have to rely upon his estimates sometimes. They are not always accurate. Very often in a Court of Law you have to rely upon estimates, but cross-examination, I admit, may show weaknesses in those estimates. Cross-examination on oath may make a person give his estimates much more carefully.
Sheltering behind your ruling of a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, and as I see that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) has now gone, I am going to say a few words about these committees. The requirements contained in the White Paper have to be satisfied before an industry can secure safeguarding, but I assert that there is not one of these requirements which at some time or other has not been disregarded by a committee which has granted a safeguarding duty, not a single one. I am going to make a suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary in a few minutes for the
amendment of the White Paper, but, before doing so, I would say that if the hon. and gallant Member had really examined the findings of these committees, had examined the figures given before them, and had then taken the trouble to follow up the subsequent revelations as to how those figures have been garbled and cooked—whether consciously or unconsciously, I am not going to say, but over and over again the figures upon which applications have been heard and duties have been levied have been shown to be totally false—then he would join with us in asking that the evidence which is brought forward by applicants should be subjected to judicial examination, and, if possible, given on oath.
I want to go into another question to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. He talked, as I came in, near the beginning of his speech, about the unholy alliance. The unholy alliance, so far as I was able to understand him, was an alliance between the merchant, the importer, and, as he said, the foreigner. That is the unholy alliance. Really, after all these years of controversy on this Free Trade question, it passes my comprehension that an hon. and gallant Member, able so to impress his personality on a large number of electors in any constituency, however remote from civilisation, or in whatever distant part of the country, as to secure election to this House, should give utterance to a sentence which expresses such a pro found ignorance of the conditions of the trade.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that whether an alliance is holy or not depends on the object of the alliance, and, if these gentlemen combine to bring goods into the country, well and good, but, if they combine to stop trade and wages in this country, it is all to the bad.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I think the hon. and gallant Member has made even more clear the misapprehension under which he is labouring. He reminds me of an hon. Member of his party who a few months ago talked about people throwing things over our back gardens. Surely hon. Members do not imagine that any merchant is foolish enough to import goods into this country unless
there is a market here of British people who want to buy them. [interruption.] But the hon. and gallant Member talked about an unholy alliance between the importer and the foreigner. He means the foreigner who makes the goods and the importer who introduces the goods into this country.

Captain WATERHOUSE: The hon. Member was not here when I started my speech.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I very much regret having missed any of the hon. and gallant Member's speech. It will be a matter of lasting regret to me. But I shall read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. What I did hear of the hon. and gallant Member's speech convinced me that I have interpreted him rightly. It is absurd to suggest that there is any kind of conspiracy on the part of these people who are importing goods that the people of this country want to buy. If the hon. Member did not mean that, then I fail to see that there could] have been any meaning in what he said. Even his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), who has now left the House, is, at last, beginning to learn. In an interruption he said: "Surely you know that goods are paid for by goods." We welcome that statement as a sign of dawning intelligence. If that be accepted, the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester on the merits of this case obviously fall to the ground. At any rate, the hon. and gallant Member has failed to convince me.
I said that I would make a suggestion. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will be good enough to consider my suggestion. When a man is out of work or is not able to support himself, before he receives extended benefit, or what is called the dole, he has first of all to prove, as a condition of receiving the dole, that he is genuinely seeking work. There have been many Debates in the House on the definition of the term "genuinely seeking work." I suggest that when these mendicant industries go to the Board of Trade to get a dole, because in essence it is exactly the same thing, they, also, should show that they are genuinely seeking work. In all these inquiries, almost without exception, it has been
clearly shown that the industries which have been granted the benefits of safeguarding are industries which are very far from being up to date and efficient. I need only mention the paper industry as one that comes to my mind as an instance of these industries which are not doing their best. If the man who gets out of work has to prove that he is genuinely seeking work, so should the industry.
We hear, we shall hear, and we shall hear more of it between now and the General Election, and we shall hear it most insistently at the General Election, about the so-called success of the Safeguarding Duties. I say, as I have said before, that so far from these Safeguarding Duties having been a success they have been a complete failure. They have demonstrably destroyed trade in this country and they have not helped the industry concerned, where they were supposed to help them. The case against safeguarding or any kind of protection, no matter by what name we call it, does not merely consist in showing that the industry concerned has not benefited. We can all understand that in a Free Trade country in a Free Trade world, if one industry is protected it is likely that that particular industry will benefit, but it can only benefit at the expense of somebody else. Hon. Members will make the fullest use of the fact that there may be particular benefit that can be shown in regard to any one industry; but the harm which is done, and which is undoubted, can by no means exactly be specified. Where the Government are going to fall on this question lies in this, that whereas they may be able to show that here and there a few more people have been employed, the total unemployment in the industries of this country under this Government has scarcely perceptibly fallen from the day that they first took office. There are many ways in which the Government can legitimately help trade. They have not helped trade; they have only tried to help specific industries at the expense of the rest of the community.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I had hoped that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who gave me notice last night that he was going to speak to-day, would have risen.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I never said anything of the sort. I happened to speak to my hon. Friend in the corridor—it is not usual to repeat these things—and I said that we proposed to raise this issue, but I never said that I intended to speak.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I apologise if I misunderstood my right hon. Friend. I did understand him to say that he intended to speak, and as I notice that he has a sheaf of papers, I naturally assumed that he was going to give us one of his disquisitions on trade, which we always listen to with pleasure, because they are the only occasions, as a rule, when we have the pleasure of seeing him here. I am particularly sorry that he has not spoken, because I was hoping that he would have continued the very interesting disquisition which he gave in my constituency last Saturday, when the proceedings were enlivened by community singing. On the arrival of the right hon. Gentleman they sang: "Why was he born so beautiful?" Judging from the condition of his hon. Friends who have addressed the House, I think the song ought to have been: "Why was he born so pessimistic?"
I am a little distressed that the Members of the Liberal party, who have enjoyed themselves so much this afternoon by speaking, have spent all their time pointing out how badly this country is situated. The hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. Strauss) deplored the fact that one industry had not prospered from safeguarding. He referred to the hop industry. Judging from the speeches which we have heard in the House, the condition of the hop industry, presumably, arises more from the habits of the Liberal party than from the effects of safeguarding. Therefore, I think the hon. Member for North Southwark had better turn to his own political friends rather than attack us. The same hon. Member deplored the fact that the new rating scheme is not to come into operation until the rate demand in October next year. He said that was very disappointing. I am very glad to get from him that tribute to the scheme. The only grievance he has against it is that it will be delayed in coming into operation. His leader took an entirely different point of view when he was speaking in my constituency last Satur-
day. He pointed out what a poor scheme it was, that it would not do any good to anybody and that it was a fraud. He used all the list of adjectives of which he is such a master. I hope the hon. Member for North Southwark and the right hon. Gentleman will decide where precisely they stand on this matter.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Griffith), by a judicious selection of unfavourable statistics, proved that this country was really on the verge of collapse. No one who follows the situation can be satisfied. We have had since the end of 1920 a volume of unemployment which, except for one or two occasional weeks at very favourable seasons, has not dropped below one million. I am relying upon the live register figures, which give the figures for unemployed persons whether over or under 65. Whatever the age may be and whether they are insured or not, if they are seeking employment, whether they are in benefit or out of benefit, they are included in these figures, which are published in the Press every Wednesday. [Interruption.] At any rate, they are the figures which we commonly use. The return does happen to include a number of people who are employed but who may be seeking change of occupation. I am now dealing with the figure which we all use, and anyone who has studied it carefully will know that it has not differed very materially from another figure, which one can arrive at by examining the statistics relating to insured persons. It is a satisfactory figure to take; it is a fair comparative figure. As the hon. Member pointed out, the position with regard to unemployment at this particular moment is rather worse than it was this time last year, but for the greater part of this year the figures were somewhat lower than the figures for last year. For the last month the other condition has been shown, and the Debate which preceded the present discussion indicated the explanation for it. The condition in the coal mining industry has extended to certain allied industries, but if you look at the other industries of the country different conditions prevail.
I am one of those who believe in what is called safeguarding. When a Committee reports favourably I rejoice, when it reports unfavourably I am sorry. I
am naturally sorry that my hon. Friends from Leicester did not get a more satisfactory report. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough represents a constituency in which unemployment on April 16th was 12 per cent., while the hon. Member for Leicester represents a city where it is 3.9 per cent. It is well for us to realise that there are parts of the country where unemployment is comparatively low, as well as parts of the country where unemployment continues to be deplorably bad. His Majesty's Government are not content with that position, and they have agreed on the notable scheme put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the rating scheme, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carvarvon Boroughs deplores because it has been introduced by the Tory party, and the other hon. Member because it does not come into operation before October, 1929.

Mr. STRAUSS: I did not say it was a success, but that it is the only thing suggested by the Government.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member has had ten minutes in which to think over my earlier remark and he has now found an answer which, however, I do not think is very apt. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough drew attention to certain statistics with regard to poor law relief. It fluctuates for a variety of causes. A large proportion of the people in receipt of poor law relief are not unemployed, indeed, the majority are not unemployed persons, and the fluctuations in poor law relief are not conclusive evidence as to the conditions prevailing in the country. They may be an evidence as to the practice of boards of guardians. I know three boards of guardians in a district where unemployment is heavy, where the industries are similar, and where the rate of unemployment does not differ materially. In one area the number in receipt of poor law relief per thousand is 105, in the next area it is 250, and in the third area it is 498. This is entirely due to the different practice of these three boards of guardians in granting relief, and when you have this kind of variation in three districts close together it is unwise to draw conclusions.
By a judicious selection of statistics, I could prove satisfactory figures in regard to poor law relief. At the end of March
this year in England and Wales there were 1,183,000 persons in receipt of domiciliary or institutional relief, that is leaving out lunatics. If I go back to the end of March, 1924, I get a figure of 1,226,000, so that since that date there has been a decrease of 43,000. By a careful selection I could prove anything I liked. But that is not the way to examine the general economic situation of the country, and it is rather a pity the hon. Member should have gone out of his way and by a selection of suitable statistics, should try to prove to the people of this country, and, what is worse, to the foreigner, that this country rather in a down and out condition, a proposition which does not really repreesnt the situation at all. If you turn from unemployment to employment you will find that there are 500,000 more people at work in this country than when the present Government took office. There are more people at work at this moment than ever before in the history of the country. Though I recognise and deplore the condition of unemployment that prevails, in certain industries, at the same time I recognise in a way that the hon. Member does not, the inroad which foreign competition has made on some of our industries. The hon. Member's only purpose was to tell us that we were in a bad condition without throwing out any, constructive suggestion whatever.

Mr. GRIFFITH: I did quote the figures of exports as an important factor. I quoted the figures of worse years than the present. The Parliamentary Secretary is not entitled to misrepresent me.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But with regard to exports the hon. Member said, "What do exports prove? The real thing which tests the condition of a country is its imports, which represent the purchasing power of the country." Having quoted exports and said that they were the only favourable figure, the hon. Member immediately proceeded to discount them.

Mr. GRIFFITH: I distinctly told the House that I regarded the export figures as a very valuable sign, but I suggested that they might not be maintained.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I agree that exports are a measure of past activity. The sole purpose of the hon. Member's
speech was to point out that at this moment we are in a bad way. There was not one ray of hope in his speech, and not one solitary proposal as to what might be done to help the country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That is the Government's job.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. and gallant Member says it is the Government's job to do it. Surely every patriotic citizen who has a bright idea, ought to place that bright idea at the service of his fellow citizens he ought not to be so narrow-minded that he is not prepared to do that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will you take a bright idea?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have to examine it first of all to find out whether it is bright or not.

Lieut.-Commander KENWO RTHY: I put this forward as one. Will you get out of office and give us a chance?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not see anything bright about that suggestion. I will not say it is an immodest suggestion but rather a suggestion lacking in modesty. Let us survey the situation and go back to the end of 1920, when we first had this great volume of unemployment. We can see the fluctuations. We see the appalling result of the mining dispute of 1921, and then the gradual restoration, to which all parties made their contribution. Then the further reaction created in the early part of 1924 and continued through the summer of that year and in 1925. There was the settlement of the Ruhr Valley dispute and the general restoration of competitive productivity on the Continent. Then we had, as a consequence, the great dispute of 1926. Gradually we recovered from that, and just at the moment the unemployment statistics indicate some temporary reaction—I believe it is temporary.
Surely it is very much better not just to decry the condition of our own country, but to do something to boost it up. We have lost a great deal of trade abroad because other nations have been led to believe, by published statements in this country, that this country was no longer in a position to compete effectively in the trade of the world. I have been
subjected to attacks from two sides. For a time the fire missed me because it was directed from one side to the other. The White Paper, of course, is not a statutory document. It is an administrative document, approved by the Cabinet, and, as I was instructed and authorised to state on the 21st March, the Government do not propose to alter the general procedure laid down in the White Paper during the lifetime of the present Parliament. That statement merely reiterated what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12th April last year in answer to a question put by the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland (Sir Park Goff):
The representations made on this subject to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade have been very carefully considered, but the Government are not prepared to modify the procedure and conditions laid down in the White Paper."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1927; col. 171, Vol. 205.]
That is a definite statement of policy from which I am not authorised to depart, and it must be accepted definitely that the Government are not prepared to depart from that policy during the life of the present Parliament, The Debate to-day has been, to some extent, an attack on the safeguarding committees. I do not think anyone has sought to attack them personally. The attack directed against them has been on the ground that they have not been selected in a suitable way. These gentlemen—and ladies—are volunteers and all have worked devotedly. They have been criticised on the ground that they are not judicial. They are criticised for not being judicial when the verdict has not been satisfactory from the point of view of the critics. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd) made a graver charge which he did not attempt to substantiate and which cannot be substantiated, namely, that not one single committee had failed to ignore one or other of the conditions in the White Paper. T do not think that is true. T have read all these reports and I find that the committees all follow the same practice. After a general survey of the trade, they give specific answers to each question and give the reasons for those answers. I think it is a most unfair attack for the hon. Member to make on the personnel of any of the committees to say that they have ignored these conditions.
We have all to realise that the verdicts of these committees are essentially verdicts of opinion. They represent opinion based on fact, but none the less it is a matter of giving an opinion, having got all the information. For example there is the question of whether employment is being or has been adversely affected. Take the difficulty of expressing an opinion like that in the case which we have been considering this afternoon. The hosiery industry is rapidly expanding and each year, broadly speaking, it employs substantially more people than it did in the previous year. Owing to changes in fashion and the introduction of new materials it is an expanding industry. Unemployment in that industry has been falling. The latest figure is 5¾ per cent. The figure quoted in the report was 5; per cent. and when the last inquiry took place it was 8.4 per cent. There is an indication that that industry, at any rate, has made marked progress. It is true that so far as one section is concerned—the section making cotton hose and cotton underwear—there is evidence of abnormal importation and there is also certain presumptive evidence that, as a consequence, less cotton underwear and less cotton hose are being produced in this country. But the people who might have been making those things must have found employment in producing other forms of hosiery, because there is no evidence that they have been driven out of the industry.
There is an expansion in the number of people registered as belonging to the industry and a decrease in the number unemployed. As I have said I rejoice when a safeguarding committee brings in a favourable report, but when you regard the stringent nature of the White Paper—and no one denies that it is a very rigid document—I think that the part of the applicant under the White Paper is even more difficult than was that of Christian past the Slough of Despond. It is not easy, it was not intended to be easy, but we have to recall the political conditions that were prevailing at the General Elections of 1923 and 1924, and that this document gives expression to pledges of the Prime Minister which had both positive and negative features. It it a difficult document to overcome.

Mr. CRAWFURD: If you keep to it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not really see that it is possible to bring a charge of injudicial interpretation of evidence against the Hosiery Committee because in paragraph 19, I think, they found themselves unable to recommend a duty very largely because of the evidence with regard to unemployment.
There is the other point raised, about the famous telephone conversation. I really would like to assure my hon. Friend that there is nothing in that telephone conversation. I have made the most exhaustive inquiries, and I am perfectly satisfied that there had been no what I would call improper conveyance of evidence to the Committee. It is part of the duty of Customs officials to plan out what steps they are going to take to administer effectively any new duty, and, although I have no personal experience of collecting Customs duties, I imagine that a new duty involves some difficulty and for a time things do not seem to work quite smoothly. If the Customs have some time in advance in which to make arrangements the inconvenience is minimised, and it does not seem improper that the Customs official who may be concerned in administering a new duty should want to have some advance information as to whether or not it is likely to be imposed.

Mr. RYE: How long in advance?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not know, but some reasonable time. A Customs official asks the Secretary of the Committee whether a duty is likely to be imposed. He is told that, so far as the whole trade is concerned, it is improbable, but that there is a possibility of a duty on cotton underwear and cotton hosiery; and the Customs official merely remarks that, if that is the case, it will want some thinking over. That did not influence the Committee in the slightest degree. The reason why the words "serious administrative difficulties" were inserted in the Report was, according to the inquiries that I have made, that samples were produced by the trade at the inquiry—samples made of cotton, wool, and mixed materials—and the Committee, after the examination of those samples and after asking questions
about them, came to the conclusion that if you had a duty on the cotton hose only, without introducing the others, serious administrative difficulties would result. That is the justification, and, it seems to me, the sufficient justification, for putting in those words.
The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye) was particularly emphatic on the subject that the committees were not judicial. I would, with great respect. submit to him that it is not necessarily the case that every lawyer is judicially minded, and it is not necessarily the case that every person who is not the lawyer has not a judicial mind. It is the purpose always, in selecting these committees, to try and get fair-minded people, people with a sufficient knowledge of trade and industry and manufacture, who can appreciate the evidence that is put before them, and yet at the same time to select people who have no personal interest in the particular application under consideration; and I think that, taking these committees as a whole, they have done their work very judicially indeed. I think that one can build up quite a strong case that, instead of having an ad hoc committee for each particular inquiry, you should have a permanent Standing Committee. It is very debatable. I am not going to express any opinion one way or the other. You could make a good case for it. Equally well, you could make a case against it on the ground that committees limited to three or four people might at times be hampered, and they would not, in dealing with some inquiries, be able to arrive at satisfactory decisions, because there was a lack of technical knowledge. Taken on the whole, committees have done their work very well, and I want to pay my tribute to them.
We have had attention drawn to the great variation of the conditions in industry in the country. Hon. Members will remember the interesting speech made by the Prime Minister at the beginning of the Session, when he pointed out that through the south of England, broadly speaking, there is a wide belt stretching just south of the Mersey, and, if South Wales be omitted, right below that line the level of employment is fairly good, and in some places very good. North of that belt, there are
conditions where trade is very bad. Taking England as a whole, and confining ourselves to insured workers, unemployment on 16th April was 8.6 per cent. In Wales it was 20.9, which is obviously due to the abnormally depressed condition of the South Wales coal-mining industry. In Scotland, the figure was 10.9. Greater London contains one-fifth of the whole insured workpeople of the country; you have to realise that. London is the most important manufacturing town in these islands. It is not commonly recognised that nearly one-fifth of the whole insured workers of this country are included in greater London, and the percentage of unemployment was only 4.9. That is a very remarkable state of affairs, and shows that some industries really are doing well, and that other industries are doing deplorably badly. It is clear that the cause of that serious unemployment is the foreign competition to which industries are exposed. Whatever views we may hold with regard to the general policy of Protection, that is shut out for the time being, but the scheme of rating relief which has been outlined, I believe, is bound to do a great deal of good, and it is directed, in particular, to assisting those industries which have been suffering most severely during the last two or three years.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It would be very much out of order if I were to follow the last observation of the hon. Gentleman by discussing the question of what the purpose of the Budget is, or whether it is ever likely to achieve that purpose. I cannot accept the statement that it is going to benefit the distressed industries. On the contrary, as far as I can see, it will go to the benefit of the most prosperous industries. The discussion this afternoon was raised with a view to eliciting from the Board of Trade some information of the very disquieting facts with regard to our trade and industry. The hon. Gentleman has not even attempted to answer any of those facts. He has referred to the statement of the Prime Minister that there are certain industries which are prospering. That is true, but that is so in every trade depression that we have ever had in this country. The serious fact at the present moment—and the hon. Gentleman has not attempted to deal with it; it cannot be
that he does not know—is that the basic industries of this country, almost without exception, are doing badly. There has been a set-back in recent months, and my hon. and learned Friend, when he raised the Debate this afternoon, asked for an explanation. I regret the absence of the President of the Board of Trade, and regret still more deeply the reason why he is unable to he present, and I hope he will soon recover his normal health. I regret his absence all the more because, although I have differed very seriously from the President of the Board of Trade upon many occasions, yet whenever we have asked him for official information in regard to the position of trade he has always taken considerable trouble to enlighten the House. I have heard pretty well all his statements. I am taunted with the fact that I take a special interest in trade, and always come here when there is a trade discussion, and I have heard every speech by the President of the Board of Trade on trade and industry, with the exception of one on an occasion when I had an engagement in Wales. He always takes the trouble to state exactly what the position is, and he gives us a very fair and impartial statement, as the President of the Board of Trade ought to do, showing his estimate and his idea of the present position of trade and its prospects. I was hoping the Parliamentary Secretary would have followed that example. He has not done so.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for a moment? I only heard at six o'clock last night that this subject was to be raised. I was informed subsequently that the point that was to be raised was about the geographical position of unemployment, and I sought to inform myself particularly on that point.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then I have no further statement to make about that. I accept the statement made by the hon. Gentleman. But I would like to repeat that there are two very serious and disquieting facts upon which information ought to be given. I do not think we ought to be put off with a statement that it is an unpatriotic thing to call attention to the condition of trade. No one described more eloquently or summarised more faithfully the position of
trade than the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech on the Budget, and he did it very fairly; and, more or less, that estimate was repeated afterwards by the Minister of Health. It is quite right that' such statements should be made. They may have the effect of informing foreigners, but how stupid to imagine that foreigners do not know exactly the position of trade in this country, just as we know the position of trade in America, in France or elsewhere.
Everybody who takes any interest in trade reads the reports from all those countries as they come in, and the hon. Gentleman will recollect that during three years we heard nothing but a dismal wail about the conditions of British trade. I remember the famous sentence "Cotton is going, wool has gone, iron and steel"—well, they were all gone, and so were tin plates. For the whole of three years we heard nothing except that British industry was going to the dogs. It was part of the stock-in-trade of those who were pleading for a change in the tariff system of this country. One also remembers the famous phrase about "two bad winters." If any party has any remedy to suggest—and obviously it would be out of place for us to suggest our remedies, because this is the Motion for the Adjournment—we are entitled to call attention to the facts. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are not entitled to do so in a spirit of pessimism, but if we have our remedies, we are entitled to impress upon the country what the facts are.
Let me give two facts which have not been given and about which I think we ought to have an explanation. My hon. and learned Friend called attention to the fact that the output of coal was down by over 5,000,000 tons during the present year, in comparison with the four corresponding months of last year. That is not the whole story. In the corresponding four months of last year we imported over 2,000,000 tons of coal, so that really the consumption of coal in this country during the last four months has been down by practically 7,000,000 tons. That is evidence that the coal trade is in a worse state than it was in 1927. That is the first fact about which the Parliamentary Secretary has offered no explanation. The second disquieting
fact is disclosed by looking at the returns of the railway traffic week by week, which are a very good indication of trade; in fact, I think they are about the most faithful indication of the position of the producers of this country. This year, those returns are divided into three headings: passengers, merchandise and coal. Naturally, one would expect a reduction of the receipts for passengers on account of the increase in chars-a-banes, motors and other means of locomotion, but the reduction in respect of passengers is not a very considerable one, and I think it only amounts to £343,000 during the four months. With regard to merchandise and coal the reduction runs into millions, and week by week that is what happens. I know that a certain proportion of that is due to the readjustment of the rates, but that is a small thing, and the difference is mainly due to a reduction in output of the coal mines and a reduction in the demand for iron and steel in our shipbuilding yards. Really it is a reduction of the productive activities of this country. It is no use saying that all is well South of the Humber because after all the North of the Humber has got to live.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is the most valuable part.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The decrease there runs into very considerable figures, and the Parliamentary Secretary has not explained any of these facts. If the hon. Gentleman has anything reassuring to say, it is better for him to say it than to indulge in cheap talk. The hon. Member can speak officially, and he can tell us what is the explanation of these facts. I understand that unemployment is up 117,000 in comparison with last year and that out-door relief is up by 175,000. The representative of the Board of Trade ought to reply to those facts, because undoubtedly they are causing a great deal of disquiet. At the beginning of this year, there were definite signs of an improvement in trade, but now there is a very uneasy feeling that we have experienced a set back. What the House of Commons is entitled to know before adjourning for the Whitsuntide holidays is this: Is there any explanation? If there is a reassuring explanation, then it
ought to be given, because there is grave disquietude. There is the fact, which is known perfectly well to the Government and to the Prime Minister, that the cotton position is very much worse, especially the American cotton position. There has been a very considerable reduction there of the importation of the raw material, which is a very bad sign in itself, so salient that a majority of those engaged in the cotton trade voted in favour of a lock-out with a view to reducing the charges in respect of wages. I do not believe the manufacturers there would ever have voted in that way unless they were in a condition of absolute despair with regard to the prospects of that industry. Is there any explanation which would be reassuring in regard to those facts? We raised the Debate purely in order to elicit information on those subjects, and I do hope that before we go, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or somebody on behalf of the Government will be able to give us some reassuring statement.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): It was not my intention to join in a discussion on these extremely grave and complicated topics. While no one complains of the right hon. Gentleman having taken the occasion for debating these serious matters, I am sure he has only to cast his eye around the House to realise that this is not the occasion on which they could be pursued to any definite conclusion. Opportunities will not be lacking in the further course of the Session nor will they be long withheld when we may get to grips with these issues. Neither the Parliamentary Secretary nor I would attempt to suggest that all is well with British trade or that His Majesty's Government have not most serious preoccupations in regard to the state, particularly, of our basic industries employing the greatest mass of manhood and labour. We have made it the central part of our work in the closing days of this Parliament to propose a Measure, remedial in its character, wide in its scope, far-reaching in its intentions, which will occupy this Parliament for the rest of its life. We shall begin, when we return, the discussion of that Measure on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill and during the day and a half allotted to
the Apportionment and Rating Valuation Bill. The effects of this remedy, partial if you will, but sincere and important, which we have devised and for which we are labouring, will be thrashed out on the Floor of the House. More information will be forthcoming as to its effects. We have then a remedy and a definite practical step to propose.
I accept all that the right hon. Gentleman said about the serious conditions of our basic industries which afford employment to the wage-earners. I trust that, if it be found that the remedy which the Government have proposed is sincerely conceived, has been honestly studied, and is the result of sufficient Departmental and technical labour, that it will be treated with reasonable fair play, that it will be examined from the point of view of people who are really worried about the condition of our industry and would like to see things better. I know that, with an election only a year or 15 months ahead, it is beyond human nature that a party point should not be taken on this side or on that, but, under those party points and above those party points, let us at any rate embark on those discussions with a sincere desire to extract from the proposals of the Government whatever may conduce to the general welfare.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Shall we then get full information with regard to those proposals?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Fuller, but not necessarily full—step by step. We are entitled to unfold our plans as we go, but, at the same time, it is obvious that, as the discussions develop, the necessary facts must be in the possession of those who take part in them. I only rose out of respect to one who occupies the position of the right hon. Gentleman as a party Leader, and who has played so great a part in our affairs. I welcome the cry of alarm which he has raised, and I say that, in view of that alarm, we have a right to claim from him earnest consideration of the practical proposals which we make, even if they are not complete or perfect; and we have also the right to expect from him a severe restraint in the use of the cheaper and commoner forms of party politics, in which, on Saturday afternoons, and parti-
cularly during the Whitsuntide vacation, he is very frequently tempted to indulge.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We are very glad to welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to the Douse, and congratulate him on the vigour and power that he is able to show in spite of his recent illness. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) appreciates it also. I noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a very different tale to tell from that of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. The Parliamentary Secretary is a disciple of his political master, though not his political superior, the President of the Board of Trade, on these occasions when the question of trade is raised. We have the President of the Board of Trade, and this occasion the Parliamentary Secretary, telling us that all is well, that there are 500,000 more people employed, and that the Jeremiahs here are blackening our character abroad; but that is not what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. The Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed with speakers who, as we on these benches have on many occasions, sounded a note of alarm at the decay of the great basic industries of this country—

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The hon. and gallant Member must not misrepresent me. My objection was to people drawing attention to the black spots and not saying one word about the others. I admit quite frankly that there are black spots in our industries, but I say let us look at the whole picture, and not at merely a part of it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Gentleman is a very able debater, and he must remember that we also like to debate with him. He is in an official position, and we are in Opposition, and we have a right to put forward certain arguments, which I hope he will take in good part. We hear that 500,000 more people are being employed, but who are they? They are mostly young girls and young boys; it is the growth of female labour in machine processes that alarms us. The able-bodied men are still unemployed in very great numbers. I was told the other day in the North of England by a working man that to-day daughters are greater assets
in a family than young sons, because they can go into the factories for a few years, and be employed on machine work at low wages, which, when there is a number of daughters, makes the household prosperous. That is a very unhealthy state of affairs. If we cannot find employment for our youths, not in blind-alley occupations but in light work in careers, we are failing.
I only rose to make a constructive suggestion or two, and I have one that I particularly want to make to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he is here. The Minister of War, in the right hon. Gentleman's unhappy absence, said he hoped the use of cheques would be extended to what are commonly known as working men. I was in America last year and I was very struck by the fact that every young man there, as soon as he has 10 dollars to spend, starts a banking account, just as in this country when he has the equivalent of 10 dollars to spare he buys a dinner jacket suit. It raises him in the social status. Every mechanic to-day either has a bicycle or a dinner jacket suit. I welcome it, but in America he has a banking account and a cheque book. I should like to see the English workman, when he is employed and has money, doing the same thing. It would first of all increase the floating credit, it would economise the use of notes and it would give the ordinary man in the street a greater sense of self-respect. I believe, too, it would make him a better Socialist, but that is in passing. Cannot we help this process by differentiating the tax on cheques? I should like to see the Stamp Tax on cheques to a large amount increased and altogether taken off cheques to an amount of £1 or less. It would encourage the use of cheques by small business men and workmen and it would conduce to thrift, the investment of more money, and so on. These small men are not the men who invest in cotton mills on the Hoogli or rubber estates abroad. They usually invest in businesses at home.
The other suggestion is this: All said and done, you have still well over a million unemployed. There are two things that could be done immediately to reduce that number. You have, we will say, a million men and women drawing unemployment insurance money. You have perhaps 200,000 men in industry
over the age of 65 who will not retire because the 10s. insurance pension is no attraction to them. But if you increase the pension for insured workers who are willing to retire in order to make way for younger men, you would take what is called the dole, insurance payment, from the younger men and add it to the pensions. You could then offer the older men 25s. a week to retire from industry. That would make way for an equivalent number of younger men who would at once come off the Unemployment Insurance Fund and you would probably save 10s. on each one. You would thus get the older men out of industry and the younger men into it. You would increase their spending capacity and, as they and their wives would have wages to spend, you would increase the demand for goods and so help to break the circle. You would perhaps get 150,000 of the older men to retire on those terms, making way for younger men, and you would actually gain on the transaction. The other proposal is that you should raise the school-leaving age of the children.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter that would require legislation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was following what I fear was a bad example. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs led me astray by speaking of a Bill which will come on after the Whitsun Recess. The first suggestion I make, with regard to encouraging use of cheques, would not require legislation. If the others are out of order let them be forgotten, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that seriously. It would help the country, it would encourage thrift, and it would help the banks, if they need any help.
The other proposal I have to make is this: When the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister make pronouncements in the country next week they might address themselves to the need for an example of greater industry on the part of those at the top in business. I am appalled at the casual attitude of the leaders of industry and those in business in this country. I am in a modest business in the City of London, a finance business, and I can assure the Chancellor
of the Exchequer that you can get very few people of any importance in the City of London between four o'clock on Friday afternoon and 12 or one o'clock on Monday. Saturday is a dies non in the City of London, and it is spreading throughout the Provinces. My hon. Friend opposite who knows Nottingham knows a great deal about this sort of thing and he will admit that I am correct. I ask him how many persons of importance he will get en the day before Whitsuntide in the City of London? The City of London and large cities like Manchester and Birmingham are working five days a week.
It seems to be the fashion for heads of businesses not to come to their offices on Saturdays. They go and sit at their golf clubs and grumble about the idleness of their workpeople. They say: "These lazy people will not work hard," whereas they themselves work only a five days' week. As to the hours, I really do not grumble about them. I think they are far too short. Many heads come too late to their offices and they leave too early in the afternoon. If they work intensively, I do not mind. But a five days' week is a scandal when they expect their workmen to work six days. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about fishing?"] If the hon. Gentleman is going to attack fishermen, there are a million working men in the country who will make it hot for him. It men take time off for fishing when they ought to be at business, they are not setting an example, because such conduct spreads and you get ca'canny.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must know that twice as much work is done in Scotland than in England and that twice as much golf is played in Scotland.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The people who play golf are not responsible heads of businesses. If so, the Scottish character has changed since I was there last year. The other proposal I want to make is that the Stock Exchange should be open on Saturdays, as is the case in Germany, France and the United States. Heaven knows how much business is lost through the Stock Exchange only working a five days' week. I believe there are few practical difficulties in the way. I believe that, if the right hon. Gentleman, who is a great worker himself and does not spare himself, and the Prime Minister who is industrious, would join with some of us, we might have some effect. We in England cannot sit back and rest on the achievements of our forefathers any longer. We have to take off our coats and buckle down if we want to regain our place in the world's markets.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I would like to point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this talk about constant hard work is all wrong. It leads to stupidity. I would remind him of the old proverb
All work, and no play, makes Jack a dull boy.
Some of the hardest worked Members of the House—those who make the most speeches and ask the most questions—are the dullest.

It being Five of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 23rd May, until Tuesday, 5th June, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.